Category: Islam

  • RNZ News

    Christchurch’s Muslim community will today hold private prayers to remember the 51 people killed in the terror attacks on the Masjid Al-Noor and Linwood mosques two years ago today.

    Hundreds of people attended the official commemorative services marking the second anniversary on Saturday.

    The imam of Masjid An-Nur Gamal Fouda said today’s prayers will be held at both mosques to remember those who lost their lives.

    “Families will remember their loved ones in different ways, many will pay their respects today by visiting the graves of those who died.

    “Saturday’s service went very well, it was great to see so many families coming together again, the wider community provided so much support,” he said.

    Imam Gamal Fouda of Masjid An Nur. March 13, 2021, Christchurch.
    Gamal Fouda at the national remembrance service on Saturday. Image: Mark Tantrum/RNZ

    Gamal Fouda said messages, flowers and cards from all over the world had helped families get through a very hard week.

    “All we can do is repeat our message that only love can heal us and make the world greater for everyone.

    ‘Sad and peaceful’
    “Today I feel sad and peaceful at the same time, sad for those who have left us but grateful that we can all come together again to remember our loved ones and friends.”

    Christchurch Mayor Lianne Dalziel said it took a while for the full horror of what had happened that day to sink in.

    “I was at a student protest in the square when we were first told something had happened, by the time we got back to council a staff member came up to me and said the police have said there’s been a shooting and at least 20 people have been killed.”

    Dalziel said she was close to the Muslim community through her history as Immigration Minister and as a mayor who presided over citizenship ceremonies.

    “I know some of the families personally so it’s been difficult coming to terms with what’s happened,” she said.

    “Some of them came here as refugees and the essence of refugee status is offering people a level of protection they can’t get in their own country but we couldn’t protect them from the behaviour of a extremist, someone who was motivated to carry out a terrorist attack on innocent people as they were praying.”

    She said it was sad that New Zealand still had some way to go to get rid of Islamophobia from our society.

    This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Police outside Al-Noor Mosque in Christchurch on Saturday as people gathered to remember the attacks two years ago. Image: RNZ/AFP

    RNZ News

    Christchurch’s Muslim community will today hold private prayers to remember the 51 people killed in the terror attacks on the Masjid Al-Noor and Linwood mosques two years ago today.

    Hundreds of people attended the official commemorative services marking the second anniversary on Saturday.

    The imam of Masjid An-Nur Gamal Fouda said today’s prayers will be held at both mosques to remember those who lost their lives.

    “Families will remember their loved ones in different ways, many will pay their respects today by visiting the graves of those who died.

    “Saturday’s service went very well, it was great to see so many families coming together again, the wider community provided so much support,” he said.

    Imam Gamal Fouda of Masjid An Nur. March 13, 2021, Christchurch. Gamal Fouda at the national remembrance service on Saturday. Image: Mark Tantrum/RNZ

    Gamal Fouda said messages, flowers and cards from all over the world had helped families get through a very hard week.

    “All we can do is repeat our message that only love can heal us and make the world greater for everyone.

    ‘Sad and peaceful’
    “Today I feel sad and peaceful at the same time, sad for those who have left us but grateful that we can all come together again to remember our loved ones and friends.”

    Christchurch Mayor Lianne Dalziel said it took a while for the full horror of what had happened that day to sink in.

    “I was at a student protest in the square when we were first told something had happened, by the time we got back to council a staff member came up to me and said the police have said there’s been a shooting and at least 20 people have been killed.”

    Dalziel said she was close to the Muslim community through her history as Immigration Minister and as a mayor who presided over citizenship ceremonies.

    “I know some of the families personally so it’s been difficult coming to terms with what’s happened,” she said.

    “Some of them came here as refugees and the essence of refugee status is offering people a level of protection they can’t get in their own country but we couldn’t protect them from the behaviour of a extremist, someone who was motivated to carry out a terrorist attack on innocent people as they were praying.”

    She said it was sad that New Zealand still had some way to go to get rid of Islamophobia from our society.

    This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

    Print Friendly, PDF & Email

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Independent Rex Patrick moves after similar parliamentary motions passed in Canada and the Netherlands

    An Australian senator will seek support from fellow upper house members to recognise China’s treatment of the Uighur Muslim minority as genocide, after similar parliamentary motions passed in Canada and the Netherlands.

    The proposed motion – placed on the Senate’s notice paper for 15 March – looms as a test for the major parties at a time when Australia should join the international community in taking a stand, according to the South Australian independent senator Rex Patrick.

    Related: ‘Being young’ leads to detention in China’s Xinjiang region

    Related: ‘Our souls are dead’: how I survived a Chinese ‘re-education’ camp for Uighurs – podcast

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • French Secular State, Judiciary and Education on Trial

    The October 16, 2020, slaying of French civics teacher, Samuel Paty, drew intensely impassioned responses from the French state, members of the society and, specifically, the Muslim immigrant community, the teacher having shown a naked caricature of the Prophet.  Displaying this image from the infamous Charlie Hebdo magazine crossed a “red line” for faithful Muslims. Therefore, the conflict between the Muslim community (3.3% of the population) and the dominant French society invoking the firmly held principle of secularism and separation of church (religion) and state mushroomed.  However, such a heated conflict elicits many questions.

    • Does the principle of secularism, laïcité, an apparent absolute in French society, serve the interests of all people equally whom it purports to benefit? Is laïcité applied with justice and consistency?
    • How did the state handle the murder? How should the state handle the murder?
    • What is the role of the state Ministry of Education and the role of the teacher? Do they create a positive learning environment that will lead to full, productive inclusion of all students equally in French society?
    • For what reasons are minority, ghettoized students being humiliated in schools? Who benefits?

    Chronology

    On October 16, 2020, M. Samuel Paty, a civics teacher in a middle school in France, fell victim to a brutal murder caught in a conflict between the French practice of secularism and the rage of fundamentalist vengeance. For his having shown Charlie Hebdo cartoons, one being a depiction of the Prophet with genital exposure, religious Muslims were outraged for their children attending that school.  Abdoullakh Anzorov, a Chechen youth from outside that school, exacted the ultimate vengeance with Paty’s beheading.  This act being not an isolated incident, it is important to trace the escalation.

    • In November 2011, the magazine Charlie Hebdo was firebombed for printing satirical material targeting Sharia and the Prophet.
    • On January 7, 2015, following the display of the image later used by Samuel Paty from the magazine Charlie Hebdo, two attackers killed and wounded 23 people in the offices of that magazine, thereby exacting a horrifying revenge for the publication.
    • On May 3, 2015, a Draw Mohammed contest drew gunfire from two shooters, leaving a security guard wounded and the two attackers dead in Garland, Texas.
    • In early October 2020, Samuel Paty showed Charlie Hebdo cartoons in a mixed class wherein Muslim students are registered.
    • There was a strong community reaction: parents lodge complaints; one mosque produces a video condemning the actions of the teacher, soon to be closed down for six months for criticising Paty.
    • On October 16, 2020, M. Samuel Paty was savagely beheaded in the street with a cleaver by a Chechen immigrant, Abdoullakh Anzarov, 18, not a student in the school.
    • Community citizens were arrested following the murder for alleged complicity in the act after social media postings.
    • French citizens rallied in support of Paty and the government position.
    • Samuel Paty, the “quiet hero” according to Macron, was awarded posthumously the Légion d’honneur, France’s highest award, for “representing the face of the Republic” within days in patriotic fervour. “We will not give up cartoons,” he said.
    • The Muslim community complains that Islamophobic affronts increase. On October 22, 2020, two Muslim women are stabbed publicly in the tension after the incidents, ascribed to the friction following M. Paty’s murder.
    • The escalation continued: The Muslim organisation Baraka City and the Collective Against Islamophobia in France (CCIF), a charity and a community organisation which compiles information on alleged acts of anti-Muslim hatred in the country, both came under attack by the French Interior minister, M Gérald Darmanin, who threatened to shut them down.
    • Macron began implementing policies to acculturate Muslims to a more “French Islam” with cooperation from some clerics.
    • In early February, Macron’s government debated and passed articles on a bill entrenching republican values supported by the French Communist Party (PCF) and the socialist Unsubmissive France (LFI) to challenge “separatism” in the wake of Muslim “radicalism.” Associations, guaranteed in prior laws of laïcité, can be dissolved and amendments can be made by government decree to uphold these republican principles.
    • National Rally leader Marine Le Pen, Macron’s most threatening opposition, called for “war legislation,” thereby using the crisis to ramp up the competition.

    Secularism

    The principle and practice of laïcité, a social model in law for France since 1905, guarantees the rights of religious freedom for religions and individuals thereof, while maintaining the secular state’s distinct separation from religious influence and the power of any clergy.  Not to be defined by atheism, it advocates secularity, a view based on “this-world” terms, entrenching the right of freedom of speech. Thus, the law, dating from 1905, allowed, even encouraged, the naked caricature as a teaching aid in support of the lesson directed at all students, including Muslim. For most, laïcité is to be an absolute principle.

    However, Dr. Alain Gabon, professor at Virginian Wesleyan University, has called Macron on his response by itemising the president’s abrogation of the entrenched law which he purports to be protecting. In fact, Gabon accuses him of enhancing separatism by treating Islam as a distinct threat beyond other religions, hence, separately. However, officials of the French Council of Muslim Faith have signed a “Charter of Principles” outlining terms and conditions that would pacify Islam according to the ideals of the Republic.  He writes:

    …besides the extreme violations of freedom of religion and the brutalisation of Islam, the charter is also a glaring violation of French laïcité – a principle the Macron government nonetheless claims to uphold. Based on the 1905 law on the separation of church and state, French laïcité includes three sacred principles that are not open to interpretation: freedom of conscience and religion, the separation of church and state, and equal treatment by the state of all religions. Macron is trampling on all three pillars.

    Islam will be a special case before the law.

    Inclusion is necessary

    What is the message to the youth? With this, they may sup at the trough of a statist hegemony as re-educated Muslims, their practice dictated not from the authority of their community leaders but of a government department, as marginalisation becomes official – hardly a prescription for peace and harmony, or laïcité.  Neo-colonialism is not dead. As Khalid Hajji, a recognized professor of humanities, has written:

    My long experience of working with Muslim youth in Europe has shown me that violence among them is largely due to the fact that they cannot recognise themselves in the values of the countries where they live, rather than because of religious fervour… Religion is often only a demarcation line in their attempts to negotiate their sense of identity in today’s difficult European context…. A criminal or a terrorist is not only the product of Islamic culture, but also of the French republic – of its schools, its migration policies and its social fabric.

    His warning must be heeded. However, the conflict continued after the firebombing, after the Charlie Hebdo massacre, after the attack in Garland, Texas, after the execution of Samuel Paty, after the restrictions on Muslim organisations, after the assault on Muslim women, and promises of “war legislation.” Now, after the state’s intervention creating separateness of the Muslim community, the state must give protection as it flaunts its own law that should protect the community.  It’s a conundrum. This unfolding narrative has become a meme, a continuing stand-off between ideological republicanism vs. the principles of a minority community.

    Political utility

    “Never let a good crisis go to waste,” Churchill said.  In an outpouring of nationalism inspired by grief, horror and indignation, Macron rose magnificently to the occasion conferring posthumous honours on the victim of the execution. The nation rallied.  The enemy was named: radical Islam, terrorist, separatism.  While Macron never used the term, Islamo-gauchisme became a meme in the press lumping “leftism” with Islam as a threat, timely in the era of Yellow Vests. Contradicting the secularist laws of the first decade of the twentieth century, laws were drafted and passed even to the extent that any association may be punished for an act of one of its members in contradiction to individual human rights.  The government assumed powers of decree in the fight against the common enemy taking a step to the right.  Surprisingly, the Communist Party of France and the socialist LFI of Mélonchon supported Macron in the nationalist frenzy.  Macron was the warrior supreme for all republicans, a strong role with an election coming in 2022.

    Of course, his opposition was not silent.  Calling radical Islam a “warlike ideology,” National Rally leader, Marine Le Pen has called for “war legislation” to compete with her rival, for her battle is not only with Islam but with Macron whom she would best.

    A common enemy unifies people. While the Yellow Vest protests have underscored the economic and financial crises of capitalism as they rally against austerity and privilege, a gasoline tax and inequities, the traumatised French population gathered en masse in unified nationalism.  They confronted the Muslim enemy, alleged radical separatism which, in some aspersions, is somehow leftist Islamo gauchisme.  What, then, is left of solidarity of the Arab working class with the general population? They have been dismissed with a word in the current rightward trend. The religious rights of Muslims need to be included. This is not limited just to Muslim students but to Arab workers who compose 3.3% of the French population.

    One must empathize with the young, for this is the troubled ground on which they are to be nurtured.  While they may not be victims in this fury, these innocents, it all began with a lesson designed for them.  They deserve more respect.

    My teaching experience

    Having taught many Muslim youths in middle-class Ontario schools, I see them as I see all students – a wonderful mix of characters engaged in school life.  They were not separate, but engaging and respectful, even with an unusual role I played.

    Following 1987, upon the Ontario government’s having included sexual orientation in the Bill of Rights, I became program director and implementer of the Anti-Homophobia Action Committee for my board. Because my home school was strongly composed of Muslim students, I was warned by colleagues, “You can’t do that with these kids.”  I did.  Furthermore, as the teacher in charge, I was uncompromisingly “out,” presenting the students with assemblies on human rights and hate crimes.  Happily, as the “out” gay teacher, I had never a sideways glance, rude remark, snigger or any slight from any of those Muslim youths.  They deserved the respect they gave. No, the Charlie Hebdo image would not have been welcome in my classroom.

    It’s universal: no student must be humiliated and marginalised.  The consequences may be catastrophic.  As Ontario’s Ministry of Education prescribed as my career began, the teacher must act as a “kind, firm, judicious parent.”

    What must teachers do?

    A “kind, firm and judicious parent”?  I cannot find one of those qualities in those cartoons, for school must become a locus of learning and growth to prepare the productive citizen. Admittedly, a middle-class Ontario school is some distance from a Parisian banlieue; however, the universal mandate is that all students must be safe, welcome and secure in the educational establishment. Alienation must be avoided, for that will bring disaster for these kids of whose perilous journeys to the West I have only hints.  The singular function of the school must be graduation, a source of dignity and pride in their new country.

    The far, far better lesson must be grounded on Martin Luther King’s admonition in his speech in the Riverside Community Church on April 4, 1967, a year to the day before he was assassinated.  “Be neighbourly.”

    Compare the two, Charlie vs. Martin. Who benefits?  Cui Bono?

    Laïcité has value

    While this short work may be thought to be an attack on the original principles of French secularism, it is not.  Of course, ideas must be discussed openly on freedom of speech in class – with sensitivity to create civil dialogue, mandated from ministries of education.  I maintain that the cartoons did not have to be shown, perhaps mentioned. Who in France would not have known about them? Such images are the red line for that already marginalised community which must not be used as a political tool. Reasonable accommodation with respect for the young must be for any teacher the fundamental moral principle.

    Need a lesson on freedom of speech? How about Julian Assange to whom France will not give asylum?

    Furthermore, I applaud the separation of religion and state when it is done fairly and equitably, in the spirit of Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité when applied with respect, especially to youth who are so easily alienated from authority. They are our future, and we can’t afford not to.  I recommend the policy in more countries and jurisdictions, East and West, even my own Province of Ontario where the Roman Catholic Schools, and only that religious group’s schools, are funded publicly.  I say remove it.

    • First published in Planning Beyond Capitalism

    The post Charlie Hebdo and His Neighbours first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Proposal is attempt to find compromise on issue after two rejections in Commons

    The government’s marathon resistance to giving the UK judiciary any role in determining if a country is committing genocide has suffered a fresh blow after peers voted to set up an ad hoc five-strong parliamentary judicial committee to assess evidence of genocide crimes. The peers voted in favour by a majority of 367 to 214, a majority of 153.

    It is the third time peers have voted for the measure in various forms and Tory whips will have to face down a third rebellion on the issue when the trade bill returns to the Commons. The judicial but parliamentary genocide assessment would be made if the government was planning to sign a new trade or economic agreement and would be most relevant to claims that China is committing genocide against the Uighur Muslims in Xinjiang province.

    Related: UK ministers accused of cynically blocking clear vote on genocide

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Muslim Council of Great Britain brings case against policy preventing burials on unproven health grounds

    A group of Muslim families are launching a complaint to the UN Human Rights Committee (HRC) about Sri Lanka’s policy of enforced cremation of all those confirmed or suspected to have died with Covid, saying it breaches their religious rights and is causing “untold misery”.

    The case seeking interim relief is being brought on behalf of the families by the Muslim Council of Great Britain and with the support of the British law firm Bindmans. It is alleged that the Sri Lankan government is enforcing hundreds of cremations despite international and Sri Lankan medical experts saying there is no evidence that Covid-19 is communicable from dead bodies.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • By Roni Roseberg

    The dictionary definition of “hijab” is a “traditional scarf worn by Muslim women to cover the hair and neck and sometimes the face.” The term can refer to any head, face, or body covering worn by Muslim women that conforms to Islamic standards of modesty.

    I met Kristin Dieng online through the Sisterhood of Salaam Shalom, a non-profit organisation dedicated to building unity between Muslims and Jews thorough dialogue, education and social action.

    Kristin is American-born, a Muslim by choice and living in the US – a place that is not always friendly to Muslims. At one point, she mentioned that she previously wore hijab.

    For various reasons, she made the difficult decision not to continue wearing it. Her decision interested me, and I decided to ask her about it.

    Kristin Dieng

    In some ways, her experience has paralleled my experience as a Jewish woman, being in a minority in the US, facing questions about the meaning of being on the fringes of US society or assimilating.

    Her experience as a Muslim has also overlapped with that of Muslims who come to the US from abroad. In other ways, it has been different from theirs.

    When she wore hijab, her light skin and eyes, native command of English and complete familiarity with US culture baffled Muslims she met and sometimes provoked their questioning of her commitment to Islam.

    Additionally, Kristin is aware that her husband, originally from West Africa, and her three brown-skinned sons with Arabic names, face a variety of challenges that a white, Christian family never would face.

    Kristin is in the precise position to observe white privilege in action, racism and the reactions of communities, Muslim and non-Muslim.

    In our dialogue here, she reflects on both the obvious and subtle nuances of in-group and out-group dividing lines. Our exchange was not only educational for me but ends with practical suggestions for society. 


    In our initial conversation, you unpacked white privilege and observed that it is not only a set of advantages, but a code for kindness among people who look similar. When you appeared different from white people due to your hijab, you were discriminated against by white Americans.

    Does that now (since you’ve chosen not to wear your hijab) make you feel suspicious or jaded about what had originally appeared to be an inherent kindness before you put on the hijab?

    Yes, I have to be honest and say that I am very suspicious of people’s kindness now, as I often question whether they would be as kind of they knew I was Muslim, or knew that I have a black husband and children. 

    I definitely often feel like a person who is “passing” (similar to a black person who is fair-skinned and not immediately identified as black, but assumed to be white) with people assuming I am Christian, when I have other identity allegiances. 

    I do think people’s kindness is genuine when they’re kind to those who appear similar to them.  But I think many people are unaware of how they limit their kindness. 

    When I do mention that I’m Muslim, or discuss my black family, I do often get a quick physical reaction, whether a pulling back or a blinking of the eyes, and then other reactions. Often that includes a deep silence and a feeling that they’re uncomfortable, followed by a foundering around for a new topic of conversation. 

    Rarely am I asked about my religion, or my family. Instead, I’m almost always presented with a change of topic to something that’s common or familiar to them. In other cases, people quickly find ways to leave my presence.

    However, I do think there are other things at play in these interactions.

    By people assuming I am Christian, or assuming that my whole family (hence allegiance to “white culture”) is white, I think that assumption of assumed “commonality” establishes an assumed trust, or an assumed common background and similarity of thinking, that results in an openness and a willingness to be kind, that lays a foundation for our interactions. 

    This openness, or kindness, is held back from people who look different, until an actual commonality is determined through conversation. If the effort to find such commonality is even made.

    Knowing, from my experiences with hijab, or my experiences with my black children, that many people hold aggressively racist or prejudiced opinions, though, I often wonder if I should even mention my religion or my family (assuming it’s relevant to the conversation). 

    Do I mention why I don’t eat pork when presented with a meal containing pork? 

    Do I mention where my husband is from (West Africa) when people express interest in him? 

    Do I discuss the struggles with racism that my kids experience when others are discussing their children’s difficulties in school? 

    Because the truth is that, often, my sharing my own truth results in unkindness or a deep withdrawal from conversation with me.

    That need to filter myself from others, or carefully share the realities of my life, results in a certain frustration with those who don’t have to filter their thoughts and sharing of personal details.

    How are you supposed to be open to others, or trust others, when so often you receive a negative reaction when you’re honest about yourself?

    With this said, there is a common shared experience among black people, native people, Jewish people, etc. of dual-identity, or a need to filter one’s personal details, thoughts and opinions.  Where you present one identity to the white community, and a separate identity to your religious or racial community.

    The topics of conversation you choose, the language and idioms you use, and the opinions you feel comfortable discussing, they all change. For white people, this difference, or a different way of thinking and interacting with the world, can result in the larger white community no longer considering you “of their own.” 

    The easy comfort and kindness often disappears and a feeling of distrust or suspicion takes its place. You, in effect, lose your “membership” in the white community but in exchange you gain community with a multitude of other groups.

    Wearing hijab in America often recognises someone as belonging to an ethnic minority community.

    On the other hand, Muslims extended themselves to you, especially seeing your hijab as a link. So how are the two groups (“white” Americans and Muslims) juxtaposed in your mind? Is there less emphasis on skin colour in the Muslim world?

    When you’re a white Muslim, there is limited acceptance in the larger Muslim community.

    Due to theology and a common belief system, Muslims will accept you as one of their own.  However, there is often a certain distrust that you’re a “real Muslim.” Due to the assumed, and real privileges that white Americans possess, immigrants are often very distrustful of a white person choosing to be part of a largely marginalised group. 

    With the American Muslim community made up primarily by first generation American immigrants, not being an immigrant means you stand out. This results in both curiosity and suspicion – whether you wear hijab or not.

    Hijab, though, does play a role in a white woman’s interactions with the Muslim community. If you wear hijab full-time, there is a certain assumption that you have “thrown your lot in with the Muslim community” and you’re given a greater acceptance. 

    By being a visible minority and losing many of the privileges that you have as a white American, everyone understands that you’re now experiencing prejudice that all visible Muslims experience. You now have a commonality of experience. 

    If you are white and don’t wear hijab, though, this commonality disappears, and, with it, the natural shared kindness that I described above in the white community.

    African Americans then have a completely different experience interacting with the Muslim community, with racism playing a role, as well as other realities (i.e. born American vs. immigrant), that I can’t speak of as a white Muslim.

    You say that your whiteness protects your sons in a way that a black parent might not experience. What does that say to you about the black experience in America?

    What change would you like to see for black parents?

    I have to be careful, as I can’t reference black experiences in America first-hand, I can only share my understanding of that experience through my reading of books and articles and conversations I’ve had with black friends and family. 

    But I can say, yes, white American’s tolerance for difference limits their willingness to accept behaviours different than their own (music, art, conversational topics, etc.). This then forces African Americans and other minorities to behave according to white-determined accepted norms, rather than perhaps what they themselves would consider appropriate. 

    In addition, minorities need to constantly interact with white people’s nuanced prejudices.

    For example, there is often an assumption that black people raising their voices communicates extreme anger. Whereas a white person raising their voice is assumed, often, to be passionate or deeply concerned or authoritative. 

    A white person can thus raise their voice when having a conversation with school authorities, if concerned about something in school, in a way that black parents often cannot. Or a white parent can discuss concerns about racist incidents involving her child that often an immigrant, or a black person, cannot. 

    I’ll give you an example. When my son was in middle school, white children on his bus bullied an immigrant Muslim student with constant chants of “ISIS” or “terrorist.” The boy, after weeks of constant taunts, yelled the f-word at the kids and was promptly kicked off the bus.

    The bus driver ignored the weeks of bullying but she immediately acted on the one incident of misbehaviour of the brown student. My son reported this incident to me and I called the school to report the whole situation. I spoke with school officials, the transportation department, I demanded they pull bus videos and I reported the whole situation to a national civil rights organisation. 

    I received an immediate response that was responsive, cooperative and helpful. They took the situation seriously. I am doubtful whether the boy’s mother, an Indian immigrant, would have received a similar reaction had she reported the situation from her son’s perspective.

    I believe my whiteness, and my familiarity with the language and culture of the school administration, got me a more proactive response. I have had many conversations with black friends about how they’re often labelled as “problem parents” when they call themselves to report racist incidents involving their kids. I haven’t been labelled as such when reporting incidents involving my own children.

    What does this say about the black experience?

    It says that black people must behave according to white norms in order to be accepted, tolerated or successful. In social, school and professional settings, where the administration of rules is run by run almost completely by white individuals, white culture is dominant. With other cultures often barely tolerated but rarely celebrated. 

    It reminds me of the constantly used phrase “but I don’t see race” as a way to defend against racism.

    That line starts with an assumption that seeing race is a bad thing, acknowledging race is a bad thing. Rather than the truth – which is that race and difference can be celebrated and educational (understanding and learning from other cultures and nationalities) and it should be acknowledged.

    Race does affect that daily experiences of minorities – ignoring their experiences is a denial of their humanity.

    What change would you like to see for black parents?

    Since white Americans hold most of the power in the United States, change needs to start with them. I’d like to see white Americans become more tolerant of differences. Differences in language, culture, ways of seeing the world, worldviews and religions. 

    I’d like to see white Americans listen more, rather than always dominating conversations and public spaces. There has to be a willingness to not assume that the “white way” is the “correct” way to do everything. 

    There needs to be better working knowledge of cultural differences in all settings, but especially by those in charge of schools, businesses etc. White people need to better understand their biases and often unconscious racism in order to treat others more equitably and with greater humanity.

    The recent death of George Floyd in the USA highlighted the ongoing struggles faced by Black Americans.

    If you were teaching a class to high school teens, what would you like to tell them?

    That the world, including and especially the United States, is made up of a multitude of people, with various ways of understanding and interacting with the world. It’s important to study other languages, cultures and religions in order to open one’s mind to differences. 

    Understanding differences will also help you better understand your own beliefs and assumptions. For example, it’s very hard to truly understand what makes America great, and not great, without having a deep understanding of alternative ways of doing things and being able to compare between different options.

    Live abroad. Experience other cultures first-hand and be able to then see your own culture and country from a new, more educated perspective. It’s when you truly experience something different from what you assume is the “norm” that you start listening more, understanding more, and pre-judging less.

    This isn’t just something that the white community needs to do (although it’s perhaps most necessary given the sheer power of the white community in all areas of the United States).  It’s something that all communities need to do in order to interact with, and appreciate, people different from themselves.

    I would honestly like for all white Americans, and even non-white Americans, to wear traditional Muslim clothing for one month. Without telling anyone you’re not Muslim. I’d like for people to inhabit, outwardly, the Muslim identity and interact with the wider American populace, experiencing what it’s like to be something different than you are. 

    I’d love if people could inhabit other races, but that’s too difficult. It’s not difficult, however, to wear some different clothing. Especially as Muslim clothing tends to be at the centre of discrimination and prejudice. 

    It’s then possible for people to experience prejudice and hate first-hand (white Americans, that of a minority group, African Americans that of an immigrant, etc.).  It’s very hard to know what privileges you have without losing them.

    I’d love to educate high school students on actual Islamic theology, so that opinions are based on facts rather than misinformation. And I’d like students to speak with actual Muslim women about why their wear hijab, rather than them making assumptions of oppression and external force.

    Much like I wouldn’t ask a Muslim to teach on the essence of Christianity, I think people should be educated on topics by those who are experts within their own fields.

    Has your bicultural, biracial family experienced discrimination in your town? If so, have you considered changing states or countries? What fears do you have for your husband and children? 

    Yes, my husband has been called the n-word more often than we could count. My children have also been called this term, both in public places and at school. 

    To be honest, though, I find such racist incidents happened a lot more when I’m present, when my children were younger in age. Then incidents at parks and playgrounds were common.  Parents called my kids names and moved their children away from mine. Some incidents were quite threatening. 

    As my sons have grown older, and larger, adults realise that they’re likely to get push-back to physical and verbal threats, and so they remain quiet. Prejudice more often takes the form of unkindness, silence and passive aggressive interactions.

    My greatest fear is my children having a violent interaction with police, either a racist officer or an officer scared of black people, and thus more likely to react inappropriately to a “perceived” threat. For example, an officer making the assumption that my son is reaching for a gun when he’s reaching for his ID (think Amadou Diallo in 1999 in New York). 

    There is nothing more terrifying to a mother than losing her child. I’m scared of this happening with my husband as well, but I trust my husband to remain calmer in complicated situations due to his life experience.

    My sons are 18 and 20. They haven’t yet interacted enough with the world to know how to respond to nuance and danger.

    Of course I’m also concerned about the ways in which discrimination may impact my kids’ opportunities – their ability to succeed in employment and provide for families. I want them to thrive.

    We have considered moving abroad. Something a man said recently stuck with me – an African American who now lives in Germany. He said that they have racism there, but it’s not backed by the threat of guns that exists in the United States. That the threat of guns heightens the danger inherent in all situations here.

    I find that true. It’s the sheer number of guns among our populace to puts the lives of police in danger and thus they are more sensitive when working and more likely to shoot civilians. With that said, we spend a lot more time considering what city we’ll live in. 

    My father builds homes as a contractor and we wanted to have him build us a house. But the only land we can afford is in areas outside the Twin Cities [Minneapolis and Saint Paul] – areas that are almost 100% white. That wasn’t an option. 

    When we travel by car, we’ve found that overt racism tends to happen when we’re about 30+ minutes outside any urban area (this holds true in every State, not just Minnesota). Racist incidents go down the closer we are to cities.

    We therefore restrict where we’ll consider living, what schools we want our kids attending and even where we travel.

    Being a hijab-wearing white Muslim in the USA brings an (often) new experience of prejudice.

    You are living with a foot in each of two worlds. It is not easy, yet you see benefits to it. Can you talk about that? How does it enhance your life? Does your faith give you strength in this challenging situation?

    I feel like a person who experienced Plato’s cave theory. Before I became a Muslim, I experienced the United States as a white American woman. I knew there was racism and prejudice, but I hadn’t experienced it myself, directly. 

    Knowing there is hate is not the same as having a woman physically prevent you from reaching your injured son because she hates his colour so much, seeing real hate in her eyes. Wearing hijab, I had a window into how non-white people experience the United States. 

    I saw how white people often treat non-white people. I love my country, but there is a very dark side to how minorities are treated in the US – a reality many white Americans haven’t experienced or don’t understand. 

    Before becoming Muslim, I saw and experienced one segment of America. I still experience that part of my country, but I now better understand how other communities experience the US as well. That’s important. 

    It’s important to how I treat and interact with others. But it’s also important internally to how I understand myself and my role in the world. Marrying a black man, being married to black man for 20+ years, and having black children, this has further expanded my view of, and experience with, all segments of the US. 

    I thought the US, the cave, was one thing, only to see that the world was much more complex, but also more beautiful than I ever could have imagined. I have more access to other languages, other cultures, other worldviews and religious understandings, other viewpoints and ways of seeing reality. My world has expanded.

    It’s hard to say where my faith has given me strength to deal with all of these complex issues, as the truth is that my faith has given me a completely different filter through which to see the world. Islam is not something you practice on a limited basis, it’s a religion that comprehensively covers every action every individual undertakes. 

    It teaches me the importance of being a great neighbour. It teaches how all humans are created equal, and that we are only unequal in our actions to help others, protect the environment and be good caretakers of our families and communities. 

    It demands that you give someone 70 excuses for bad behaviour towards yourself in case you’re misunderstanding a situation, the person is having a bad day, he/she is reacting out of hurt, etc. It’s a faith that encourages kindness and justice and action when you see you something wrong.

    It helps me be better person, and that, itself, makes me stronger and more willing to interact with those different from me, or in situations unfamiliar to me. And to do so in a humane and intentional way. It also, literally, has opened the world to me. 

    The Muslim community in the United States is incredibly diverse – it’s a community dominated by immigrants. I therefore have constant interactions with Hispanic Muslims, African Muslims, Asian Muslims and European Muslims.

    This constant mixing of cultures and languages means you literally have the whole world at your fingertips. That is a blessing and it’s a constant opportunity for education and knowledge.

    Given the current situation, many people are trying to take a hard look at themselves, reassessing their strengths and weaknesses, particularly in regards to race. And while I personally find political articles educational and helpful, many people only respond, or listen to, stories of a personal nature.

    So I’m going to be brutally honest about myself here. Specifically as it relates to my own personal path of understanding race in America.

    Most of my friends and colleagues know that I once wore hijab, the Islamic head covering, for many years after I converted to Islam. It was a personal choice, and one I believed in deeply.

    When I made the decision, I made it in a state of innocence and naivety. I did not know it yet, but I would be completely unprepared for what I was about to experience. I saw hijab as a form of modesty, and a commitment to my faith.

    What I did not see, not truly, was how the world would see me wearing it.

    After three years of wearing hijab, I made the decision to take it off. It was a very difficult decision, and I had many conflicting feelings about it. At the time, my reasons for no longer wearing the hijab were all largely practical. 

    People who meet me now often ask me why I took it off. And I’m able to dodge the question by giving a simple one: it was the time of 9/11 and wearing it was a safety risk.

    But the real question, if you want an honest answer, is why do I choose to continue to not wear hijab? Because that entails a radically different answer. And that answer is tied up in race and, yes, privilege.

    When I started wearing hijab, I instantly lost my “whiteness” and all of the benefits it afforded. Okay, not benefits but privileges. A word I know that makes many white people uncomfortable. 

    I lost the kindness that white women tend to naturally give other women. I lost the kindness of clerks and workers and most people just generally living their lives out in public. I lost the ability to be judged based on my actions, my character and my intelligence when interviewing for jobs. 

    In fact, I lost my English language, because somehow when people see a woman in hijab, they so deeply believe it must be a foreigner that they no longer hear perfect fluent English. I lost all of the benefits that my hard-earned Georgetown education afforded me.

    I could spend all day listing everything that I lost when I lost my whiteness, but the most important thing I lost was the safety that comes with it. I had previously always been left alone, when in public, to go about my day.  People left me in peace.

    No longer. I was accosted verbally. Physically. In my car, in stores, on the street. Life became a series of threats and efforts by me to diffuse them. It was physically and mentally exhausting. 

    It, day by day, chipped down my confidence, my belief in myself and my appreciation for my own value as a human being. I lost my belief in America and the American people. I lost my belief that people could be kind and good.

    My primary concern became, always: where would I be safe?

    By learning about other cultures and peoples, we can help fight racism.

    So why I didn’t I put my hijab back on? Why don’t I today?

    Not giving myself any quarter, the brutal truth is I do not want to lose my whiteness again.

    I don’t want to lose the privileges that come with it. I now KNOW the costs of not being white. Deeply, in my marrow.  It’s one thing to take on a new identity without understanding the consequences. But I know them now.

    I am not proud of the fact that I still believe in hijab and yet choose not to wear it. I am ashamed that I give more weight to my fear of people, specifically of American men and women, than I’m giving to my deeply held religious beliefs.

    Now, twenty years later, I am the mother of three black boys. Two of them over 18 and over 6 feet tall. I thought wearing hijab taught me a lot about racism in America. And it did. 

    It was necessary for me to experience racism in person, in my face, to truly understand the cost it imposes on the human psyche.

    It’s necessary to look into someone’s face and see pure, adulterated hate to really understand how it feels it to have it directed at you. 

    Having black children, though, has opened up a new avenue for me to better understand racism in America. It’s now a constant reminder that, despite being white, I can no longer avoid the costs of blackness.

    This includes racial taunts against my children on playgrounds. Actual physical assaults on my children by people who fill up, somehow, with rage, just seeing them. We’ve had incidents at school, and on the bus, innumerable chats of n****r.  Each damaging to my children. 

    I’m not even going to touch on my experiences having been married to a black man for more than 20 years. That’s another story for another day.

    I am always aware that, as a white woman, I have the option to temporarily step away from it all. I can walk through small towns without the snickering, the whispers and the hostile stares. 

    I can drive my car over the speed limit, or change lanes without signally, without being scared for my life. I can, yes, enjoy smiles and kindness from complete strangers in the grocery store and in restaurants and other public places.

    I can, in other words, take a break from the reality of racism when I so choose.  I can breathe deeply, regaining the strength necessary for when I’m with my kids, or my husband, and, again, another racist incident takes place.

    This is not something afforded to people of colour. There is no taking their colour off as I did a piece of clothing. Or stepping away from my children.

    Addressing racism, and racist incidents, often occurs daily, weekly, monthly. The exhaustion mounts and the stress results in physical consequences. 

    The walls slowly, over time, come up. Because the truth is: when you look at a white person, you don’t know what you’re dealing with. Will it be kindness, neutrality, or, on occasion, actual acts of violence?

    If you went into a space and knew you’d be accosted one time in ten, would you then continue to go to that same place? 

    Yes, it means that nine times in ten you’ll be okay. The majority of the time. But that one time in ten is still high, and dangerous.

    Black Muslims account for 1 in 5 Muslims in the USA (Pew Research Centre, 2019).

    So, do you instead make an effort to protect yourself by making other decisions when possible? Would it be natural to build up mental walls as a shield? 

    Because the truth is: you can’t avoid that place. Because that place is your city, your workplace, your country. Now imagine this is also your children’s reality too.

    Can you imagine the strength it takes to send your children out into the world every day knowing that that one in ten situation still applies? And you have absolutely no ability to protect your child.

    That this is the reality of their world, and they simply have to learn to adjust mentally and physically in a manner that allows them to stay sane. And still believe in their self-worth. That they need to continue to focus on school and homework. And then later on, as an adult, to go out into the world, to work every day, drive down streets, function successfully, always knowing danger lurks just on the edges.

    This is my personal experience with race. With my children all still at home, I use my white privilege, unapologetically, to protect them for as long as I can.

    They can enter stores without being followed as long as they’re with me. They can ride in my car, safer with a white driver than driving on their own. My youngest can have school conferences where any hints of racism will be immediately called out, in a way that might be perceived as “threatening” if done by a black parent. 

    I’m quite aware that I can’t keep them by my side forever however. That this small amount of privilege afforded to them by their proximity to me, and my whiteness, will end. And it is terrifying. It’s a reality that black mothers and fathers deal with from the moment their children are born.

    I wish that everyone could share in the experience I had while wearing hijab. It was, truly, the ability to walk in another’s shoes. In the shoes of someone who appeared, at least visually, to be radically different than me.

    Although, of course, me without hijab is still me, an American Muslim. But without that one piece of cloth I am, somehow, given the benefit of the doubt that I am “just like everyone else.” Whatever that means. I’m still me.

    I found my time wearing hijab traumatic. Not because wearing a piece of cloth on my head is difficult, or oppressive. But because of how others’ misperceptions and prejudice altered their view of me. 

    It has left me with deep scars. But it also gave me a perspective and a learning experience that no amount of money could buy. It has also given me a new lens, if you will, through which to view the world. A more accurate lens. One that sees everyone’s humanity much more clearly. 

    This is something that each person in our country needs. Because we’d all be acting radically different with one another. We’d be practicing a lot more kindness to strangers.

    Thank you for your heartfelt, candid insights. I wish more people could walk in others’ shoes. Perhaps there would be more understanding in the world. I also wish we were neighbours. 

    Disclaimer

    The views expressed in this blog are solely the author’s/interviewees and do not necessarily reflect those of Voice of Salam. 

    This post was originally published on Voice of Salam.

  • Government offers alternative to amendment that could force UK to reconsider trade deals with countries such as China

    The government is seeking to fend off a backbench revolt over China by giving the foreign affairs select committee new powers to investigate whether a country is so clearly breaching human rights that the UK should not agree to a free trade deal with it.

    The proposal is being canvassed as an alternative to a measure which would give the high court the power to make a preliminary determination that a country with which the UK is negotiating a trade deal is committing genocide. Such a determination would require the government to consider pulling out of any free trade agreement.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Defeated measure aimed to give high court more power to protect minorities such as China’s Uighurs

    The government has narrowly defeated a move requiring the government to reconsider any trade deal with a country found by the high court to be committing genocide.

    The measure, backed by religious groups and a powerful cross-party alliance of MPs, was defeated by 319 to 308.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • UK court would determine whether China is committing genocide against Uighurs if measure passed

    The government is struggling to contain a potential backbench rebellion over its China policy after the Conservative Muslim Forum, the International Bar Association (IBA), and the prime minister’s former envoy on freedom of religious belief backed a move to give the UK courts a say in determining whether countries are committing genocide.

    The measure is due in the Commons on Tuesday when the trade bill returns from the Lords where a genocide amendment has been inserted. The amendment has been devised specifically in relation to allegations that China is committing genocide against Uighur people in Xinjiang province, a charge Beijing has repeatedly denied.

    Related: China in darkest period for human rights since Tiananmen, says rights group

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • John Morrison and Sam Watson on Dominic Raab’s commitment to fine businesses over modern-day slavery in supply chains

    The commitment made by Dominic Raab, the foreign secretary, to strengthen businesses’ supply chain requirements under the Modern Slavery Act are welcome, if overdue (China’s treatment of Uighurs amounts to torture, says Dominic Raab, 12 January).

    For him to choose the situation facing the Uighurs in China to do so also seems appropriate, but it represents a blunt instrument for the task in hand. Fines for companies that refuse to issue modern slavery statements will increase the number of statements, but not necessarily their quality.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Advocacy group Open Doors says hardline regimes across world exploit pandemic

    Persecution of Christians around the world has increased during the Covid pandemic, with followers being refused aid in many countries, authoritarian governments stepping up surveillance, and Islamic militants exploiting the crisis, a report says.

    More than 340 million Christians – one in eight – face high levels of persecution and discrimination because of their faith, according to the 2021 World Watch List compiled by the Christian advocacy group Open Doors.

    Related: Pope changes law so women are allowed to perform tasks in mass

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Foreign secretary sets out measures to ensure UK companies cannot profit from forced labour in Xinjiang

    China’s treatment of the Uighur people amounts to torture, the British foreign secretary, Dominic Raab, has said as he set out measures designed to ensure no companies allow the use of forced labour from Xinjiang province in their supply chain. Deterrent fines will be imposed on firms that do not show due diligence in cleaning up their supply chains, he said.

    The aim, he told MPs, was to “ensure no company that profits from forced labour in Xinjiang can do business in the UK, that no UK business is involved in their supply chains”.

    Related: How I survived a Chinese ‘re-education’ camp for Uighurs

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Recent reports of potential normalisation between Indonesia and Israel have received varied reactions in the respective countries. In his three-month marathon toward normalization, U.S. President Donald Trump has persuaded four Arab countries to open diplomatic relations with Israel. With his term set to end in a matter of days, Trump carries on in a full sprint to rack up even more. Oman and Indonesia, said an Israeli source, are predicted to be the next targets.

    In his latest book, The Hundred Years War on Palestine, historian Rashid Khalidi writes that Israel’s “most vital asset” is its reputation abroad. Since its founding, Israel has struggled to protect its image and stature in the face of delegitimization by Arab and Muslim countries. For the regionally isolated Jewish state, for whom the question of legitimacy is of existential importance, normalisation is understandably a top foreign policy priority.

    While news surrounding normalisation has acquired a banality due to frequent media coverage, the significance of an official Indonesian thawing of ties to Israel should not be underestimated. Previous deals for the normalisation of ties to Israel by other sovereign states were made by monarchs and dictators. These decisions were grossly unrepresentative of the opinions of their people, an overwhelming majority of whom disapprove of such a normalization. When viewed through an Israeli lens, normalisation with Indonesia—a thriving Muslim democracy—could be seen as its first success in winning the hearts and minds of both the public and leadership of a previously antagonistic nation.

    Surprising but not unforeseeable

    The Indonesian government was quick to refute the alleged opening. The Foreign Ministry denied any talks had taken place with Israel, while affirming Indonesia’s unwavering support for Palestinian independence — a position which was later reiterated by Speaker of Parliament Puan Maharani.

    While the suddenness of the news may come as a shock, it is by no means unforeseeable.

    In late November, Indonesia decided to reinstate calling visas for citizens of Israel and seven other countries. This action was criticized by some Indonesian MPs, as potential soft diplomacy to ease and cushion an eventual normalisation of ties. Curiously, the decision came several weeks after U.S. State Secretary Mike Pompeo’s first official visit to Indonesia. Pompeo has been a key figure in the normalisation marathon, well known for his shuttle diplomacy between the U.S. and the Middle East for that purpose.

    Compared to Malaysia and Brunei, Indonesia seems to have a more welcoming climate to open relations with Israel. While normalisation only enjoys minute support today, Israel and its lobby groups have successfully reached out to these marginal voices.

    Social media has proven very effective as a point of contact. “Israel Berbahasa Indonesia”, a Facebook page managed by the Israeli government, has achieved more than 280,000 followers. The page, self-declared as “educational” in its mission, shares select pieces of news that counter the mainstream anti-Israeli narrative in Indonesia. The human-to-human track is exemplified by the social media strategy of influencer Hananya Naftali, a member of Israeli PM’s outreach team. Naftali regularly sends heart-felt messages to Indonesians on their day of independence. In a recent tweet he shared a picture six hijabi students whose entangled bodies form the Star of David. “We were not meant to be enemies”, he wrote.

    Israel has also sponsored programs and gatherings specifically designed to amplify the impact of its cultural diplomacy.

    Early next year the Israel Asia Centre will inaugurate the “Israel-Indonesia Futures” program where entrepreneurs and professionals are trained to strengthen ties between the two countries. The organizing team boasted securing at least 200 million USD in investment to the Israeli economy by the alumni of its previous programs. While the annual visit by Indonesian pilgrims to Israel is well documented, lesser known are the organized educational tours funded by pro-Israel groups for Indonesians who demonstrate sound capacity as cultural bridges between the two nations. My correspondence with one participant shows the meticulousness with which the itinerary of these tours is crafted. Locations visited include the West Bank settlements and the disputed Golan Heights—places ordinary tourists cannot easily access.

    For some Indonesians, whose state-imposed restrictions from interacting with Israelis has ironically bred curiosity to see the other side, “visit us and you’ll understand us” has become an almost irresistible mantra. Although largely unnoticed, pro-Israel sympathy is becoming less a taboo for certain circles in Indonesia. To those who closely follow this trajectory, news on normalization, while sudden, is not surprising.

    Material benefit, symbolic loss

    Arab countries who have normalized ties with Israel have been promised specific benefits from the US. Most notoriously in the Moroccan case, the normalisation of ties was conditioned upon American recognition of the kingdom’s sovereignty over the disputed Western Sahara. In a future Indonesian scenario, similar quid pro quo arrangements are possibly in order. One senior U.S. official recently disclosed the possibility of Indonesia receiving billions of dollars in American aid as a reward of normalisation of ties.

    Few disciples of realpolitik would dispute the merits of relations with Israel. Normalisation advocacy often highlight the benefit Indonesia may reap from Israel’s cutting-edge technology, particularly in the agriculture and health sector. Moreover, with open relations Indonesia would no longer depend on third parties to purchase military equipment from Israel—like its past procurement of Israeli Skyhawks in the 1980s. In the current pandemic, the interest in Israel’s world-class vaccine research is becoming ever apparent.

    This rationalization is certainly true insofar as material benefit is concerned. An ideological reading of the situation, however, projects a more sinister scenario.

    Indonesia’s national prestige historically stems from its spearheading role in the Third World anti-colonial struggle. As the only nation in attendance at the 1955 Bandung Conference  yet to gain independence, it is almost expected that Palestine captures the current focus of Indonesia’s anti-colonial mission. Just several years ago, in the sixtieth commemoration of the conference, President Joko Widodo urged the world “not to turn their back on Palestinian suffering”. In the mainstream Palestinian parlance, normalisation is spoken of as exactly that: a stab in the back. The reputational toll to Indonesia for being perceived as a hypocrite who abandons the Palestinian cause is tremendous.

    Even during the Suharto era, the heyday of covert cooperation with Israel, Indonesia did not go to the extent of normalisation. If in the oppressive New Order—when controversial policy could be pursued with fewer political cost—Israeli material incentives did not allure Indonesia to forego its special commitment for Palestine, assuming that the same reasoning could work today is a naiveté.

    “Saviour complex”: normalizing to help Palestinians

    The Indonesian non-recognition of Israel primarily stems from the symbolic importance (nationalist and religious) of solidarity with the Palestinians. Lip-service to this symbolic aspect, at the least, is a must for pro-normalisation arguments to gain traction. Relying on material grounds alone will not succeed.

    The late-president Abdurrahman Wahid once made an intriguing argument: if Indonesia, whose state-ideology abhors atheism, has relations with Communist China why not with God-believing Israel? Indonesia, Wahid argued further, could never play a meaningful role in brokering peace by only talking to one side and avoiding the other.

    The echo of this Gusdurian legacy still resonates with many Indonesian Muslims today, particularly among the Nahdliyin. The controversial 2017 visit to Israel by Yahya Cholil Staquf, the General Secretary of NU, was hailed by his supporters as the continuation of Wahid’s inter-civilizational mission. Staquf sought to convey the message of Islam as rahmah (universal compassion) to Israelis, hoping it would persuade them to the path of peace.

    For Indonesians who have witnessed decades of hostility that have brought the Palestinians nowhere, reaching to the other side—even with the slightest chance to achieve peace—seems like a reasonable step to take. Normalisation, in this line of thinking, constitutes a strategic move to increase Indonesia’s leverage such that its concern on the Palestinian question is solemnly heard by Israel. Or does it?

    In my estimation, this gesture of benevolence might unfortunately be misplaced. Beyond simply a matter of future statehood, supporting the Palestinian right of self-determination should mean an acknowledgement that they are best placed to shape their future. Indonesia is an ally to the Palestinians; it is neither their saviour nor it should pretend to be one. What good is the helper, if its help is not sought by the helped?

    If anything unites the different Palestinian factions, it is their resistance against the normalisation trend. Both the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority and Hamas have appealed directly to the Indonesian president, alerting him of the trend’s detriments. Palestine even left its chairmanship in the Arab League precisely due to the organization’s failure to condemn normalisation. There are no grounds to claim that Palestinians would feel helped by Indonesia opening up to Israel. If anything, it would seriously demoralise them.

    One must remember that the Israel of Gusdur’s time is different from today. Israel’s Overton window has shifted so much to the right, that the leftist peace camp has become a virtually irrelevant player. Today, political centrism in Israel still means retention of illegal settlements and ambivalence to Palestinian statehood. Many in the Israeli leadership have now spoken of containing the conflict, rather than resolving it.

    A garrison state in the region, Israel prizes recognition as an insurance policy in the context of its existential insecurity. For such a treasured bargaining chip, normalisation should not be given away for facile promises and mere material incentives. Indonesia must remain steadfast to its two-state commitment and quell the normalisation trend. Peace and justice should come before recognition, not the reverse.

    The post Indonesia is no saviour: against normalisation with Israel appeared first on New Mandala.

    This post was originally published on New Mandala.

  • The Indonesian government has officially banned the hardline Islamic Defenders Front (Front Pembela Islam, FPI) through a joint ministerial decree (SKB) on 30 December 2020. It lists six reasons for the ban. Among them is that FPI has no legal grounds to operate as a civil organization, and many of its members were involved in terrorism, illegal raids, and other violent activities.

    On December 12, 2020, the police detained Habib Rizieq Syihab, the leader of the FPI. He was charged with violating COVID-19 health protocols at his daughter’s wedding party and a celebration of the Prophet Muhammad’s birthday. The events drew large crowds, following Rizieq’s homecoming after three years in exile in Saudi Arabia. Five other FPI members were also named suspects in this case, including the FPI general chairman, Sabri Lubis.

    Habib Rizieq surrendered to the police a few days after six FPI members were shot dead by the police who were allegedly investigating the COVID-19 violations. The incident leaves many unanswered questions. The police and the FPI have their own versions. The police claim that the shooting was carried out in self-defence because the six FPI members attacked first with firearms and sharp weapons. The FPI claim that they were massacred by the police and deny that they had weapons. This incident is still under investigation due to concerns that these may have been extrajudicial executions.

    The events of the past month signify how the government has become increasingly repressive in coping with Islamist groups considered a threat to the Indonesian state. Many Indonesians are happy with and appreciate the government’s move, even those who claim to be pluralist and progressive. The actions, however, will intensify grievances against the government. Quite apart from the question of whether the government’s repressive measures undermine democracy, it is not yet clear whether the crackdown demonstrates the powerlessness of Islamists, particularly the 212 movement, or whether it serves as a new, unifying issue in a way that could have ramifications for the next round of elections in 2024.

    Habib Rizieq and the 212 Movement

    The 212 movement, also known as “Action to Defend Islam (Aksi Bela Islam)”, was born out of the 2 December 2016 mobilisation of hundreds of thousands of Muslims in the streets of Jakarta to protest against Basuki Tjahaja Purnama (Ahok), former Jakarta governor whom the organisers accused of blasphemy. They included the conservative-traditionalist FPI, the Salafi-modernist network of the Indonesian Council of Young Intellectuals and Ulama (MIUMI, Majelis Intelektual dan Ulama Muda Indonesia), Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia (HTI), and the Forum of Islamic Society (Forum Umat Islam, FUI), and some Islamic study groups (majelis taklim).

    To commemorate the anti-Ahok mobilisation, an annual reunion has been held on 2 December, at the National Monument (Monas) in Jakarta. The reunion in 2018 still attracted a huge crowd, but the numbers began to decline in 2019. The 212 movement by then was in disarray. Not only were there internal frictions, but the movement had lost both its original reason for unity (the blasphemy case), and its main political patron, Prabowo Subianto, rival of President Jokowi in the 2019 election, who later joined Jokowi’s second-term cabinet as Defence Minister.

    Habib Rizieq was a key figure in the 212 movement from the beginning. The 212 rallies arguably made him and his organization, FPI, even more significant and popular. Rizieq’s return to Indonesia, therefore, initially raised hopes that the 2020 reunion could attract far more attendees and reconsolidate the movement amid the changing political landscape.

    However, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the government prohibited the 2020 212 reunion rally. Consequently, the 212 Alumni Brotherhood (the institutional representative of the 212 movement) held an online event entitled “National Dialogue of 100 Ulamas and Figures”,  broadcast live on FPI’s YouTube channel: Front TV. The participants were prominent figures, supporters, and sympathisers of the 212-movement alliance, such as the MIUMI chairman Bachtiar Nasir, the Salafi Wahdah Islamiyah chairman Zaitun Rasmin, HTI preacher Felix Siauw, and some politicians. That suggested a reconsolidation was in the works, using Rizieq’s call for “moral revolution (revolusi akhlaq)” as a catch-all phrase to criticise the Jokowi government. If the Islamists could agree on little else, they could agree that Jokowi’s government was unfair and despotic.

    During the event celebrating the Prophet’s birthday in Petamburan, Jakarta, on December 14, 2020, Habib Rizieq conveyed five core points of the Jokowi government which he intended to fight with his moral revolution: [1] efforts to secularise the state governance; [2] criminalisation of ulamas and figures opposing the government; [3] protection for blasphemers; [4] the controversial Omnibus Law; [5] the oligarchy that rules the economy.

    The substance of the revolusi akhlaq was, in fact, similar to the narratives that Habib Rizieq and FPI voiced during the 212 rallies, such as “NKRI Bersyariah (the sharia-based Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia), “ayat suci di atas ayat konstitusi” (the holy verses above constitutional articles), and other terms that reflect the agenda of Islamic supremacy. While the slogan of “revolusi akhlaq” has little potential in consolidating the Islamist alliance of the 212 movement, I contend it is the government’s recent treatment of Habib Rizieq and the FPI that could empower this movement.

    Government Response and Islamist Militancy

    Studies on democracy and Islamist movements in Indonesia demonstrate that the Jokowi government is increasingly using repressive measures to suppress Islamist opposition—a policy direction that Greg Fealy calls “repressive pluralism”. This is done by implementing a confusing anti-radicalism policy, increasingly reliant on the military and police, and which involves marginalisation and sometimes criminalisation of anyone suspected of (broadly defined) radical views and favouritism towards moderate groups like Nahdlatul Ulama (NU). The government’s response to what has happened since Rizieq’s return should be viewed in this context.

    For example, the military was involved in taking down billboards showing Habib Rizieq’s picture, that had been erected by his supporters in Jakarta. The police threatened to charge anyone claiming that the six men killed did not carry sharp weapons and firearms. The chairman of the North Sumatra FPI was arrested for defaming President Jokowi and Megawati (Indonesia’s fifth president and chairman of PDIP). More importantly, by arresting Habib Rizieq and banning FPI, the government increasingly shows aggressive attitudes in coping with Islamists.

    Hypocrisy or imagination? Pseudo-pluralism in Indonesia

    The Indonesian government’s approach to Islamic outliers simultanesously marks them as dangerous and fails to protect the vulnerable from harm

    In addition, it is difficult not assume that Habib Rizieq’s recent arrest is political. In fact, there have been many other cases of violations of the COVID-19 health protocol, such as during the 2020 regional election campaigns, that have gone unpunished. This suggests that the protocols are being used by the government as a tool to limit the activities of Islamist groups.

    Habib Rizieq seems to have kept control of his supporters and so far prevented a backlash, yet the anger against the government from a wide spectrum of Islamist groups is growing. A wave of mass protests emerged in many regions across Java and Madura, demanding justice for the deaths of the six FPI members and the release of Habib Rizieq. This was then followed by an attempt to organise a protest rally on 18 December, to be called the  “1812 action” organized by FPI, the 212 Alumni Brotherhood, and their allies in central Jakarta. But the police prevented it on the grounds that it could lead to a new cluster of COVID-19 transmission.

    The 212 Alumni Brotherhood has pinned the title of “hero and martyr (syuhada) of revolusi akhlaqto the six FPI men killed. Many Islamist groups within the alliance of the 212 movement, such as MIUMI, HTI, and some Salafi groups, believe that they are martyrs who defended Islam. This belief reflects what Marx Jurgensmayer calls “cosmic war”, meaning the Islamists are struggling in “a religious scenario” against the government they believe marginalises Muslims. This further provides a moral-religious justification for them to increasingly oppose the ruling government.

    The government’s aggressive response may restrict political space in the short-term for Islamists, but in the long-term it could be counter-productive for the state, strengthening Islamist militancy, and perpetuating the Indonesian proverb about “a fire in the rice husks” that can explode at any time. It gives the Islamists a new issue to rally around, powerful new grievances against the government and an atmosphere to restore their movement’s solidarity ahead of the 2024 presidential election.

     

    The post The impact of the Indonesian government’s crackdown on Islamists appeared first on New Mandala.

    This post was originally published on New Mandala.

  • Ankara has long welcomed Uighur and Turkic Muslims fleeing China but rights groups fear the treaty will endanger them

    Beijing has ratified an extradition treaty with Turkey that human rights groups warn could endanger Uighur families and activists fleeing persecution by Chinese authorities if it is adopted by Ankara.

    The treaty, signed in 2017, was formalised at the weekend at the National People’s Congress, with state media saying it would be used for counter-terrorism purposes. Facing strong opposition within its parliament, Turkey’s government has not yet ratified the deal, and critics have urged the government to abandon it and prevent the treaty from “becoming an instrument of persecution”.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • By Simon Hardy Butler

    Bigotry and baklava. They don’t go together.

    One is sour, bitter. The other: sweet.

    I prefer baklava.

    Why am I writing about this? Well, it reminds me of a recent incident at work when I was about to start a hectic day.

    A colleague whom I shall call “Lara” left on the kitchen’s communal table a selection of baklava and other filo-wrapped Middle Eastern pastries she had baked at home earlier.

    I tried some; of course, they were wonderful … honey-soaked but not too sticky, sugary yet not overpowering. I thanked her and told her what a terrific chef she was. She was very modest and gracious in response.

    Joking, I asked her if she had any more. I went back to my chair in good humour. The desserts had made me very happy.

    The next day, after entering the office and approaching my chair, I saw a covered aluminium foil take-out container on my desk. Coming closer, I noticed my name was written on the top.

    I opened it and was delighted to find more baklava. It was obvious who did this. And it was obvious I was going to thank her even more profusely than before.

    Which I did. Again, she was modest, gracious. I, however, couldn’t help but lavish praise.

    shutterstock_784574839
    Balava (a.k.a baklawa) is a popular sweet across Turkey and the Middle East.

    This wasn’t the type of thing that happened to me often; frankly, such generosity hardly ever came near my work station during my entire career. That’s too bad, because the sweets were the best things to happen to me that morning.

    I haven’t forgotten them, nor have I forgotten Lara’s munificence.

    Skip ahead a month or two. It’s a hot day. I pass by Lara in the hallway, and she remarks on the difficulty of fasting at this time.

    I knew she was talking about Ramadan. She was leaning toward not fasting due to the possibility of complications resulting from the heat. I agreed with her and sympathised. I went back to my desk.

    Then it occurred to me that I was missing something. After I realised what it was, I returned to Lara’s work station.

    “Happy holiday,” I said to her.

    Lara is Muslim. She is one of the nicest, most benevolent people in the office.

    She is Muslim. She’s a terrific cook and pastry chef.

    She is Muslim. She took the time to bring me more of the baklava I so enjoyed to our job and put it on my desk — schlepping it from her home so I could partake of it.

    She is Muslim. And you know what? Anyone who hates Muslims in general and suggests they leave our country and rails against them on social media and bloviates about taqiyya is a freakin’ idiot.

    portrait-photo-of-a-woman-wearing-black-hijab-2564529
    Islamophobia is a real issue affecting the Muslim community.

    Denigrating an entire population is ridiculous. No one is the same person. I, as a Jew, am disgusted when racist, antisemitic imbeciles on either side of the political spectrum rant about Jews and their supposed eee-vile behaviour.

    Why can’t we all feel the way about Muslims? Why is this somehow legitimate in public forums?

    The truth is, it’s not. Islamophobia is not some made-up affliction; it’s real, and it’s insidious. You just can’t lump human beings together as a group and make generalisations about them as a whole.

    They’re not cattle. They’re people.

    Muslims are people. Jews are people. Many of us are good. Some of us are bad.

    You see what I’m saying? Men and women aren’t monolithic. We’re all individuals. We’re all separate units.

    To speak ill of communities collectively is bigoted and uninformed. We don’t want to be that. We want to be like that baklava: light, sweet, maybe a little flaky. Oh, and don’t forget the nuts. There are always plenty of those.

    Lara gave me more baklava even though I didn’t ask for it, and I will value that experience as I value a bar of gold. Perhaps even more. For she knew the power of pastry and how happy it can make people.

    If only more folks shared the same vision. If only more folks had the same thought process.

    We might be in a different world. We might be in a better one. Because baklava always trumps bigotry.

    And friendship will always — I say, always, without reservations — trump hate.

     

    About the author

    SimonSimon Hardy Butler is a New York-based writer and editor whose writings have appeared in publications such as Zagat, Adweek, Algemeiner and The Jewish Advocate. His blog may be found at cinemablogishkeit.com.

    Credits

    This blog was first published by The Times of Israel (16th June, 2017).

     

    20% offPurpleBouquets

    This post was originally published on Voice of Salam.