altmuslim
Since 9/11, Muslims in America have been in a state of siege and it seems to be getting worse rather than better. Increasing numbers of Americans have negative views of Islam and increasing numbers of Muslims are experiencing harassment or worse. Much of the blame for this has to lie with the Bush Administration and its “war on terrorism”. Not only do policies such as the Patriot Act, round-ups and detentions of Muslim immigrants, and over-hyped arrests of “sleeper cells” damage those Muslims caught up in them, these policies also create a sense for Americans that Muslims are aliens, enemies within.
The Bush Administration’s foreign policies have also negatively affected Muslims. First and foremost are the wars on Afghanistan and Iraq. The United States has also given unreserved support to Israel, Russia, and India in their campaigns against the Palestinians, the Chechens, and the Kashmiris, respectively, all in the name of the “war on terrorism”. Despite reassurances to the contrary by Bush and others, it seems that the war on terrorism does not extend beyond Muslim targets.
None of what I’ve said so far should be news to anybody. We all know it and despair over it. We wonder if there’s anything we can do to stop it or to change it. The good news is, there is something that we can do as Muslims in America. That something is to vote.
But wait! Isn’t voting haram? Doesn’t it mean supporting a kufr system? Muslims who seek to become politically active will hear this one a lot. So let’s deal with it head on. Shaykh Muhammad al-Munajjid, a very conservative Saudi scholar, was asked about voting in elections in a non-Muslim country. He replied:
It may be the case that the interests of Islam require Muslims to vote so as to ward off the greater evil and to reduce harmful effects, such as where two candidates may be non-Muslims but one of them is less hostile towards Muslims than the other, and Muslimsy not be too far away if a new bill (Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003), dubbed “Patriot Act II,” passes. It will make lawful the immediate deportation of any foreigner and lawful permanent resident alien, and allow the U.S. government to strip citizenship from anyone.
As the first Patriot Act was passed in a period of a few weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks, my concern today is that given the same environment, Patriot Act II might also pass without thorough congressional review.
What then is the recourse of the American people, knowing that Muslim or other groups of Americans might be heading toward a fate similar to Japanese-Americans during World War II? It seems that our government leaders, such as Rep. Howard Coble, who publicly supported Japanese-American internment, are not familiar with the report by the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians. The conclusion of that report in 1983 stated:
“In sum, Executive Order 9066 [calling for internment of Japanese-Americans] was not justified by military necessity, and the decisions that followed from it — exclusion, detention, the ending of detention and the ending of exclusion — were not founded upon military consideration. The broad historical causes that shaped these decisions were race prejudice, war hysteria and a failure of political leadership. Widespread ignorance about Americans of Japanese descent contributed to a policy conceived in haste and executed in an atmosphere of fear and anger at Japan. A grave personal injustice was done to the American citizens and resident aliens of Japanese ancestry who, without individual review or any prohibitive evidence against them, were excluded, removed and detained by the United States during World War II.”
Not one of the interned Japanese-Americans was ever convicted of treason against the United States. And 60 years later, our nation is committing similar acts of injustice toward another group of loyal Americans, Muslims of Arab and South Asian descent, without any consideration of history, knowing the harm and futility of such policies.
First, we must recognize that the Patriot Act was primarily the action of the executive branch, i.e. the Bush administration, which rammed legislation through Congress during a period of crisis.
After Sept. 11, the Bush administration, using executive orders and emergency regulations, also issued policies that were outside the purview of both the legislative and judiciary branches. As a result, the “war on terrorism” is practically being carried out by executive fiat.
These actions are happening in secrecy, so there is no accountability. For example, the United States detained thousands of Muslims after Sept. 11 because we thought they were terrorists or had knowledge of terrorists. The Justice Department has yet to account for all of them and their whereabouts.
What’s worse, the powers that would be unleashed by Patriot Act II would affect every American. Unlike government action during World War II that was specifically targeting Americans of Japanese descent, the act does not single out any particular group, and therefore could be applied to anyone.
In times of war and crisis, is it possible to balance national security with civil liberties, especially when we’ve been forewarned that the “war on terrorism” has no end in sight? Yes, but we must be willing to own up to our historically failed and racist policies of targeting whole communities for the actions of a few, use our intellect and imagination to develop effective policies that balance national security with 200 years of civil liberties, and take the time to have those polices thoroughly reviewed by Congress, which most directly represents the people.
Alternatively, we may wake up to the most formidable police state in the world — that of our own United States of America. The choice still belongs to the people.
Maha ElGenaidi is president of the Islamic Networks Group, which provides education about Islamic culture and the Muslim world. She is also a member of the Santa Clara County Human Relations Commission.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In