Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, June 2000, pages 88-90

Muslim-American Activism

Discussion of Legal Issues Facing Muslim Communities in the United States

The Islamic Legal Society of the Washington College of Law at American University held an April 13 roundtable discussion on contemporary legal issues facing Muslim communities in the United States such as the use of secret evidence against them, employment discrimination, racial profiling and media portrayal. The speakers included Eric Shakir, civil rights coordinator at the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR); Kit Gage, national coordinator of the National Coalition to Protect Political Freedom; and Hussein Ibish, national communications director at the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC).

Shakir spoke on civil rights and the status of employment discrimination, indicating that for the past three years it has steadily increased by 30 percent annually. He focused on three main points. First, that there are an estimated six million Muslims in the United States and Islam will soon be the second largest religion in the nation. Second, as Muslims increase in numbers they will become more politically active and assertive, and third, that the U.S. media, by the manner in which they approach Islamic issues, are building up negative stereotypes about Muslims.

Shakir carefully noted that “Islam is probably the most visible religion in the world” because of its many visible practices, such as daily prayers, Friday congregation services, the month-long daylight fasting of Ramadan and the hijab (or religious headscarf). He said the majority of CAIR’s cases are matters of “religious accommodation,” such as allowing Muslim men to wear beards in the workplace (in accordance with the Sunnah, or teachings of the Prophet Muhammad), permitting Muslim women to wear the hijab, giving two weeks of leave to enable Muslims to make the pilgrimage to Mecca, allowing for daily prayers during the work hours and time off on Fridays for men to attend group prayers at a masjid.

Shakir then described CAIR’s three-step resolution process for handling civil rights cases affecting Muslims. First, mediation, by which the employer is contacted, and both the employer and employee are made aware of the legal aspects of the situation.

Secondly, education through sensitivity training, to inform the employer about the specifics of religious practices. This step is crucial, Shakir stated, as “most people don’t express ‘religion’ in the workplace,” but in the case of Islam, Muslims practice their religion in and outside of the home.

Third, the litigation process begins, if necessary, but since CAIR does not employ lawyers the cases are then referred to attorneys. Shakir concluded by emphasizing the necessity of outreach to and education of the non-Muslim community to combat misunderstandings and stereotypes which often lead to discrimination. He also emphasized the need to network through lawyers and for greater awareness on the part of Muslims to understand their rights and the law.

Next, Kit Gage spoke on secret evidence and the aims of the National Coalition to Protect Political Freedom. In light of the recent surge of government attacks on Arab and Muslim communities with the passage of the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (which permits the use of secret evidence), and the Immigration Bill of 1996, the National Coalition came into existence. Gage pointed out that “the umbrella of those acts allowed the government to do extreme acts of injustice” to Arabs and Muslims. The issue of secret evidence is a violation of basic civil rights, Gage said, as the defendants “have no ability to fight back against charges [whose contents] they don’t know.”

On a positive note, Gage said that many national civil rights groups, national legal organizations, local support groups, and Washington, DC-based Arab and Muslim organizations are working together to form coalitions to address the secret evidence issue. She highlighted two recent impressive successes of the National Coalition in the separate cases of Hany Kiareldeen and Nasser Ahmed, both of whom were arrested and jailed without any disclosure of the charges or evidence held against them.

In both cases, Gage said, the defense lawyers initially went to court with no information on the charges, yet eventually the government gave out a significant amount of the “evidence” used against the defendants. And, Gage added, the lawyers disproved each allegation, one by one, and the two defendants eventually were released and all “charges” dropped.

These cases prove two things, Gage said. First, one cannot defend oneself against secret evidence. And second, government authorities are abusing the process of law because “they can collect any ‘garbage’ allegation, throw it into the pot and it doesn’t matter what it is because no one will know.” She noted that only through “coordinated legal and political diligence did both of these cases succeed.”

Finally, Hussein Ibish of ADC spoke on alleged discriminatory targeting and racial profiling against Arabs and Muslims in the United States. He used the phrase “the rush to judge the other” to highlight two incidents in which Arabs and Muslims were presumed guilty despite the absence of any evidence. Ironically, he said, the 1995 bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City and the 1996 crash of TWA Flight 800 gave rise to the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, which has been used to discriminate against Muslim- and Arab-Americans, although neither were involved in any way in either tragedy.

Ibish alleged that discrimination has gone beyond the Anti-Terrorism Act and includes racial profiling at airports and ports. He said that a “climate of fear” in the United States toward terrorism has given birth to a paranoia and extreme stereotyping against Arabs and Muslims, not just by the government, but also the entertainment industry. Hollywood productions such as “True Lies,” “The Siege” and “Rules of Engagement” depict the most extreme and openly offensive remarks and images of Arabs and Muslims so that even exposing the stereotypes does not dispel or debunk their power. All of this, Ibish concluded, calls for a long process to extinguish myths and negative stereotypes against Arabs and Muslims.

—Adila Masood

Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy Holds First Annual Conference

The Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy (CSID) held its first annual all-day conference, “The Theory and Practice of Democracy in Islam,” April 30 at Georgetown University in Washington, DC. The Center brought together a diverse group of scholars, activists and professionals to analyze political developments in the Muslim world and to identify ways of promoting democracy in various Muslim countries. The conference was convened by Ali Mazrui, CSID chair, and John Esposito, CSID vice-chair.

In his opening remarks Mazrui emphasized the need for open dialogue of democracy and Islam, to study and compare the interaction of Islam and democracy in the Islamic world and in the Western world. Mazrui stated that “one of the most important dialogues in democracy is the value of democracy itself,” which needs to be constantly confirmed and reconfirmed. He highlighted the effect of Islamic movements in helping to bring greater democracy to the West, citing the mujahedeen who did such serious damage to the Soviet empire in the 1980s but were not given “enough credit…in bringing about the Soviet demise.” By fighting for their own freedom, Mazrui said, the mujahedeen indirectly helped bring democracy to Eastern Europe. He also credited Algerian freedom fighters with a role in the fall of France’s Fourth Republic and the formation by Charles de Gaulle of a new Fifth Republic which has given France more democracy. Thus, Mazrui concluded, “as Muslims fight for freedom from foreign rule, they may in fact help democracies of foreign rulers.”

The first panel on “The Theory of Democracy in Islam” was chaired by Prof. Tamara Sonn of the Department of History at the College of William and Mary, and included Raja Bahlul, professor in the Program in Democracy and Human Rights at Birzeit University in the Palestinian West Bank, and Prof. Muqtedar Khan of Washington College. Speaking on “Divine Sovereignty vs. Popular Sovereignty,” Dr. Bahlul said on the one hand democracy requires the upholding of a principle of popular sovereignty, by which the people are supposed to rule and are not subjected to any power except their own. Yet, this notion of “popular sovereignty” is not acceptable for the Islamists, who emphasize “al-Hakimiyya li-Allah” or “Rulership (sovereignty) belongs to God.”

Bahlul cited moderate Iranian President Mohammad Khatami, who is by no means a secularist, but who “acknowledges the existence of an undeniable sense of popular sovereignty,” by which people are free to choose Islam or not. Noting that “it is not possible for an Islamic state [to exist] without the will of the people,” Bahlul said this demonstrates that there exists a sense of “popular sovereignty” which nobody, not even Islamic thinkers, can deny.

According to Bahlul, “placing absolute rulership in the hands of God takes [society] into autocratic rule.” Instead, Islamic thinkers are becoming increasingly aware of the notion of “government of the people, by the people,” and their concepts and values are going beyond the “procedural” concepts of democracy. Bahlul concluded that the formation and development of Islamic democracy is one of a family of “epistemic approaches” and should be viewed as a process in progress.

Next, Muqtedar Khan spoke on “Shura and Democracy,” arguing that the very basis of the relationship of Islam and democracy is the philosophical assumption that democracy is the best system. Looking at why the Islamic world is not “democratic,” Khan identified three possible reasons. First, as a result of colonial occupation many countries lost their self-confidence and do not feel competent to govern themselves. Second, low levels of education and hygiene and widespread poverty in some Islamic societies do not allow for the people to “rise above themselves.” And, third, democracy is a consequence of security. “Unless the Muslim world has security, it cannot have democracy,” Khan said.

Shura, Khan said, can be used as a basis on which to build democracy. “Not only is Shura ideal, it is necessary,” he maintained. The very concept of Shura in an Islamic country requires consulting all people—men, women, Arab and non-Arab. Khan complained that “while developing political theory, we are circumscribed by Islamic philosophy,” when in fact, it should be the reverse. Law should emerge after the polity has been created.

Only by going back to al-umma, or polity, can there be any true development of the laws to be established, Khan said. At present practice is preceding theory, Khan said, and “in the Muslim world this will be problematic…as political theory solutions should be first, instead of the law first.”

Khan emphasized that civil society, prosperity and respect for human rights are all causes, not consequences, of democracy. Societies should be looked at as “well-governed” or “ill-governed.” In the case of India, for example, it is a democracy, but an ill-governed country, Khan said. He concluded that “three things are important for a society: justice, freedom and [moral] development.”

The final panelist, Tamara Sonn, spoke on “Elements of Government in Classical Islam: Separation of Powers and Independence of the Judiciary.” Sonn focused on the classical themes and elements of governance in primarily Sunni Islamic sources. “The essential element of Islamic life is Islamic law,” which defines a Muslim, Sonn said. She cited early examples of Islamic political development, noting that the Prophet Muhammad made clear distinctions between divine law (revelations) and human decisions.

Yet, within 30 years after the death of the Prophet Muhammad, divisions began among people elected within the community on the type of rule. Sonn described variants of this rule, whereby responsibility was assigned for defense and the treasury and the executive leader did not make the decisions, but enforced them only. The making of the laws was within the judiciary branch, separate from the executive. In the early Islamic period, Sonn pointed out, there was a clear separation of power and a sufficient number of educated people for participation in the legislation process.

Following the first panel was a special panel in Arabic on “Islam and Democracy in Algeria,” with Rafik Aloui of the High Islamic Council speaking on “Sovereignty and Sources of Law in Islam,” and Miloud Meziane, member of the National Parliament of Algeria, discussing “The Democratic Experiment in Algeria.” After the two presentations, a brief press conference on Algeria was held by the Algerian delegation. Dr. Khurshid Ahmad, chairman of the Board of Directors of the Islamic Foundation in Leicester, UK, then delivered the keynote luncheon address on “Economics, Democracy and Islam.”

The second and final panel on “The Praxis of Democracy in Islam” was chaired by Dr. Louis J. Cantori of the University of Maryland at Baltimore. Charles Kurzman, professor in the Department of Sociology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, spoke on “Liberal Islam in Iran.” Robert Crane of the Center for Policy Research spoke on “Preserving Representative Government in America through Direct Democracy: An Islamic Initiative.” Dicky Sofjan, Fulbright Exchange Fellow at Northeastern University, spoke on “Islam and Democratization in Indonesia.”

Sofjan pointed out that in recent times “Indonesia experienced dramatic changes that are simultaneously marked by a significant comeback to liberal democracy.” With Indonesia’s social and political experimentation, President Abdurrahman Wahid, himself a prominent member of the ulama or religious teaching authorities, proves to the outside world that Islam does not inherently oppose the notion of democracy. Thus, Sofjan concluded, “Indonesia’s reform measures and move toward democracy will ultimately provide an example for both Muslim and non-Muslim countries.”

The next speaker, Prof. Salim Mansur of the Department of Political Science at the University of Western Ontario in Canada, spoke on “Muslims, Democracy, and the American Experience.” The problem of the Muslim world in dealing with modernity, Mansur said, “is not Islam waiting to be correctly interpreted by individuals of learning,” but Muslims resistant to change in keeping with the modern age.

He focused on the study of Muslims and their culture, and not on Islam, identifying the attributes of this cultural system as seen in the general attitude of Muslims toward women, minorities and dissidents. Mansur pointed out that “as long as the Muslim majority adheres to this cultural system, reinforces it and operates by its norms, the Muslim world will continue to recede further away from the modern world.”

Regarding the concept of democracy, Mansur suggested it should be seen as a political-cultural system, best analyzed and applied in a Muslim context. Finally, the experience of America and the Muslim world has been more “shaped by the power of America abroad than by the subtleties of American democracy at home,” he said. The result is a widely distorted image of America in the minds of Muslims, both within the United States and abroad.

The CSID conference concluded with the distribution of plaques to CSID Founding Members and closing remarks by Ali Mazrui, followed by a business meeting for CSID members.

—Adila Masood