Muslims For A Safe America

Read more… or Read more right here… »

For example, we have a Religion/Identity handout called “Should American Muslims Be Loyal To America?” We present six arguments by those who believe Muslims should be loyal to America, followed by six arguments by those who believe Muslims should not be loyal to America.

In the Domestic Security area, we have a handout called “Should American Mosques Be Watched By The Government?” We present seven arguments by those who oppose watching mosques, followed by seven arguments by those who favor watching mosques.

In the Foreign Policy area, we have a handout called “Did Invading Iraq Make America Safer?” We present ten arguments by those who believe that invading Iraq did make America safer, followed by ten arguments by those who believe that invading Iraq did not make America safer.

Why do we use this neutral approach? Why is it useful to give American Muslims differing points of view (including “politically incorrect” views)?

We find that American Muslims (like other Americans) often take positions on national security issues based on emotion rather than information. The problem with this is that those American Muslims unfortunately lack the knowledge and the confidence to go out into society and have a serious discussion about these issues with other people, because emotion can only take you so far. And emotion can get you into trouble.

So what happens to these American Muslims who rely on their emotions? They start to feel isolated and powerless. They feel like no one is listening to them. They get depressed. They give up on trying to share their views.

And the rest of the country loses the potential benefit of the insight that American Muslims could offer on important issues.

That’s the problem that Muslims For A Safe America seeks to address. We have done the groundwork, researching each issue and summarizing all the pros and cons regarding each issue on one colorful, double-sided page. All the readers have to do is pick the issue (or issues) they are interested in, read one page on the issue, think critically about the arguments on both sides, and then decide what the “right” answer is for them. (Of course, deciding on the “right” answer is not always easy, because there are often strong arguments on both sides of various issues.) Then they are ready to go out and get involved in the discussions that the rest of the country is already having about these issues. They are ready to start having serious and informed discussions with their neighbors, classmates, co-workers, and friends. They are ready to start calling in to radio shows and writing letters to the editor. They are ready to start talking to their elected representatives. Now they have some basic information, and they have thought through the issues, so they can proceed with confidence. (Imagine what it would be like to hear an informed, educated American Muslim caller on the air, talking about the issue of the day, every time you turn on the radio.)

In addition, providing American Muslims with information about the “big picture” encourages them to broaden their thinking, to think not just in terms of what makes Muslims around the world safe, but in terms of what makes Muslims around the world safe AND what makes America safe. Our approach encourages American Muslims to look for an overlap in the interests of Muslims and America, and to look for options that produce a win-win situation.

Why is it important to get more grassroots American Muslims involved in the ongoing national debate about national security issues? Why don’t we just leave those discussions to professional spokespeople from existing Muslim organizations? The hole that our community is in post-9/11 is so deep that we can’t expect existing Muslim organizations to get us out of it if our greatest resource sits depressed on the sidelines. Millions of grassroots American Muslims around the country are our greatest resource. They can reach vast numbers of Americans at the grassroots in a way that no “spokesperson” can. And if they speak from the heart, explaining their personal views about what’s good for Muslims and for America, they can have more credibility than “spokespeople” who may be perceived to be “public relations” people spinning the issues.

Is it a good idea for Muslims For A Safe America to encourage discussion about controversial national security issues? Isn’t it better “public relations” to keep quiet about such issues? Muslims For A Safe America doesn’t “create” or “manufacture” any issues. We deal only with issues that have already become the subject of public debate in American society. The problem, of course, is that very few grassroots American Muslims participate in ongoing public discussions of these issues. These discussions will not go away just because grassroots American Muslims pretend the discussions don’t exist. Instead, the discussions will simply continue without our input.

Is one double-sided page on each issue really enough to help American Muslims get involved? Muslims For A Safe America doesn’t claim that our summaries are exhaustive. But these summaries are a good starting point for American Muslims who don’t have the time to do the research for themselves. Our summaries are a good way to get the “big picture.”

Where does Muslims For A Safe America get the information that we put in our handouts? We get our pro and con arguments by researching materials produced by people who actually hold those various points of view. Then we present each side as it would present itself, without any editorial comment by us. In other words, we try to make the best case argument for each side, so that the audience gets a real sense of the debate. The arguments we present aren’t original. What is original is the way we present all the basic information in a short, neutral, easy to understand format.

Why doesn’t Muslims For A Safe America take a position on the issues it raises in its handouts? We do take positions on some fundamental issues, which are cited in our Core Principles. We don’t take positions on other issues, because we don’t want to damage our credibility with grassroots American Muslims, who have differing opinions on these issues. Our goal is to educate and facilitate a discussion about these issues. If our organization takes a position, we may alienate American Muslims who take a different view; that could discourage them from taking a look at our material which encourages American Muslims to look at the “big picture.” We expect that if American Muslims look at the “big picture,” they may start taking more thoughtful positions on the issues. We also expect that if other Americans see American Muslims taking thoughtful (rather than emotional) positions on these issues, they too will start to do the same thing.

« Hide it

Read more… or Read more right here… »

Arguments By Those Who Believe The Government Should Not Focus Security On Muslims

1. The government should thoroughly interview all passengers, not just those who “look Muslim,” to determine who needs an in-depth search, the way Israel does.

2. If the government doesn’t have the resources to interview all passengers, then intensive searching and interviewing should be random, so that terrorists know there is a chance that they (or unsuspecting passengers who have been given bombs by friends or relatives) will be thoroughly searched, even if they don’t “look Muslim.”

3. The government cannot always accurately tell who’s Muslim and who’s not. There are Muslims of all different ethnicities; they don’t all “look Muslim” or have “Muslim names.” There are also people of other faiths who “look Muslim,” like the Brazilian man killed by British police on the subway soon after the 2005 London bombings. It will be difficult to focus on Muslims if screeners can’t figure out who’s Muslim and who isn’t. Furthermore, if the government focuses on people who “look Muslim,” Al Qaeda will use bombers, including converts of various races (like shoe-bomber Richard Reid), who don’t “look Muslim,” and they will get through the system because security will be focused elsewhere. Furthermore, there are millions of Muslims in America. Even if the government could identify most of them, the government doesn’t have the resources to interview and search every Muslim traveler.

4. Ethnicity and religion are distractions from the most important warning signs. The government should focus on people who have recently traveled to certain places, people who appear to be anxious or under stress or sweating, or people who are wearing bulky clothing or walking in an awkward manner (because they might be concealing weapons or explosives). If religion and ethnicity are used as even one factor, screeners will give too much weight to that factor, and they will miss suspicious behaviors by those who don’t “look Muslim.”

5. Rather than devoting resources to people who “look Muslim,” the government should devote resources to better screening technology, so that all liquid or solid explosives can be detected. In addition, the government should increase the use of bomb-sniffing dogs. If the government prevents weapons from getting on a plane, potential hijackers can’t do any harm even if they get on planes.

6. Profiling Muslims will alienate Muslims from law enforcement, make them distrustful of law enforcement, and make them less likely to report suspicious activity that may come to their attention in the future. If the profiling is particularly abusive, and if it sends the message that American Muslims are “not real Americans,” it could help Al Qaeda recruit supporters.

7. Based on intelligence, the government is already aware of and monitoring the people who pose a threat, so there’s no need to pick on other Muslims at airports.

Arguments By Those Who Believe The Government Should Focus Security On Muslims

1. The government does not have the resources to thoroughly interview all passengers. So there has to be some selectivity.

2. Random searches divert screening resources towards some passengers who clearly pose no threat. With random searches, there is a chance that bombers will fall through the cracks. But if random searches are used in addition to profiling, as a secondary layer of security, they can enhance security.

3. Al Qaeda is at war with America, and it seeks to attack public transportation. Not all Muslims are members of Al Qaeda, but all members of Al Qaeda are Muslim. Furthermore, Al Qaeda members could use innocent, unsuspecting Muslims to carry bombs. So security should be focused on Muslim travelers. Terrorists are less likely to attempt attacks, if they know their chances of being interviewed and thoroughly searched are high.

4. If the government doesn’t interview and search every Muslim traveler, it should at least take religion and ethnicity into account, along with behavioral factors, in deciding whom to focus on, because Muslims are more likely than people of other faiths to be members of Al Qaeda (or more likely than people of other faiths to be unknowingly carrying a weapon for a friend or relative who is a member of Al Qaeda).

5. The government should get the best screening technology, but the government cannot rely completely on technology to keep us safe, because even the best technology is not foolproof. The government should also devote resources to having large numbers of highly-motivated and well-trained screeners.

6. Profiling can be done in a way that does not alienate Muslims. Screeners should approach Muslim passengers in a friendly and respectful way, not a hostile way. There should be no attempt to humiliate. Muslims who cooperate should be treated like allies, not suspects. They should be publicly acknowledged and thanked by the crew once they board the plane. Furthermore, the government can give benefits, for example tax benefits or reduced airfares, to those who are subjected to intensive searches; this will help compensate for the additional burden innocent Muslims are asked to bear.

7. Although law enforcement does monitor terror suspects based on intelligence, law enforcement is not aware of all the terrorist threats that are out there, so there must be screening at airports.

« Hide it

Read more… or Read more right here… »

“Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors. And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith. But if they cease, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression.” (2:190-193)

Do these verses apply only when someone attacks Muslims to prevent the practice of Islam (i.e. “suppress faith”), or do these verses apply anytime Muslims are attacked? Should Muslims only fight those who physically attack them, or should Muslims also fight those who provide financial and political support for attacks on Muslims? Should Muslims fight only if they are personally attacked, or should all Muslims fight when any Muslim is attacked? Should Muslims fight until the attackers accept Islam, or until the attacked Muslims are free to practice and preach their faith?

“Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not. They ask thee concerning fighting in the Prohibited Month. Say: ‘Fighting therein is a grave (offence); but graver is it in the sight of Allah to prevent access to the path of Allah, to deny Him, to prevent access to the Sacred Mosque, and drive out its members.’ Tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter. Nor will they cease fighting you until they turn you back from your faith if they can.” (2:216-217)

Do these verses mean that Muslims must fight whenever someone prevents them access to the path of Allah, whenever someone denies Allah, or whenever someone drives Muslims out of the Sacred Mosque? Must all Muslims fight when these conditions exist? What level of “tumult and oppression” justifies violence?

“And why should ye not fight in the cause of Allah and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated (and oppressed)? Men, women, and children, whose cry is: ‘Our Lord! Rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from thee one who will protect; and raise for us from thee one who will help!’” (4:75)

Does this verse mean that whenever people are oppressed, all Muslims should fight the oppressors? Should Muslims fight until there is no more oppression in the world?

“On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people.” (5:32)

Does this verse mean that anyone who has committed murder or spread mischief in the land may be killed? What is “mischief”? Who decides whether someone has spread “mischief” in the land? Can any Muslim determine that someone else has committed “mischief”? Are courts the only ones that can decide? What if courts don’t exist?

“Say to the Unbelievers, if (now) they desist (from Unbelief), their past would be forgiven them; but if they persist, the punishment of those before them is already (a matter of warning for them). And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah altogether and everywhere; but if they cease, verily Allah doth see all that they do.” (8:38-39)

Which “unbelievers” does this verse refer to? Do these verses mean that Muslims today should fight “unbelievers” until everyone accepts Islam? Should Muslims fight “unbelievers” until Muslims are free to practice their faith? Should Muslims fight “unbelievers” until justice prevails around the world? Should Muslims fight all “unbelievers,” or just “unbelievers” who attack Muslims? What level of “tumult and oppression” justifies violence?

“(But the treaties are) not dissolved with those Pagans with whom ye have entered into alliance and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor aided any one against you. So fulfil your engagements with them to the end of their term: for Allah loveth the righteous. But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.” (9:4-5)

Which “pagans” do these verses refer to? Just pagans in the Arabian Peninsula at the time of the Prophet? All pagans everywhere at all times? Do these verses mean Muslims should fight pagans until they become Muslim?

“Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” (9:29)

Does this verse mean that Muslims should fight and subdue People of the Book, simply on the basis of the beliefs and religious practices of those People of the Book? Are Muslims required to fight only until People of the Book accept the political authority of the Islamic state and agree to pay taxes (Jizya) to the state, or does “subdued” mean something more than that? Which People of the Book do these verses refer to? Just People of the Book in the Arabian Peninsula at the time of the Prophet? All People of the Book everywhere at all times?

“O ye who believe! fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you: and know that Allah is with those who fear Him.” (9:123)

[NOTE: “who gird you about” means “who are near to you.”] Which “unbelievers” does this verse refer to? Should Muslims fight all “unbelievers,” or just “unbelievers” who attack Muslims?

“To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged; and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid; (They are) those who have been expelled from their homes in defiance of right, (for no cause) except that they say, ‘Our Lord is Allah.’” (22:39-40)

Do these verses mean that Muslims can only fight if they personally are expelled from their homes for religious reasons? Should all Muslims fight if any Muslim is expelled from her home for religious reasons? Should Muslims fight only those who directly expelled Muslims from their homes, or also those who assisted with the expulsion?

« Hide it