A Brief Reflection on the 20th Anniversary of 9/11

Mehlaqa Samdani

As we mark the 20th anniversary of the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil and mourn the loss of nearly 3,000 innocent civilians on that fateful September day, are we as a country ready to ask ourselves and our leaders the hard questions that eluded us for so long?

Following the horrific attacks, pundits and policymakers alike speculated on the various reasons terrorists targeted the United States. Some talked about the hijackers’ rage and envy at our freedoms, our way of life, our prosperity. Others held the faith of 1.5 billion Muslims responsible for the carnage. Even though there were courageous voices speaking to the contrary, our national narrative was reduced to self-serving explanations, which prevented us from having honest conversations about America’s role in the world.

In this narrative, there was little mention of America’s conduct in the Middle East and SW Asia leading up to the events of 9/11. There was little discussion of how in its pursuit of oil and military bases, the U.S. had propped up unsavory regimes aligned with American interests, and toppled those that were averse to them. In those early days, we seldom talked about how in an effort to counter the communist threat, the U.S. had helped create the very same groups that attacked us on September 11. And that American military bases generated deep resentment and radicalization among local populations against America’s imperial ambitions.

Had we been more critical of our governments’ previous misadventures and the resulting blowback, we might have been less willing to send young Americans to fight in the Global War on Terror that would result in the deaths, displacement, detentions, and disappearances of hundreds and thousands of innocent civilians across the Muslim world.

Had we been more skeptical of our right to militarily impose our values on other societies, we would have been less willing to accept our 20-year, neo-colonial experiments in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Had we been less susceptible to the fear-mongering and hysterical pronouncements of policymakers branding Islam as the enemy, we would have been less accepting of Islamophobic laws and policies (Patriot Act, Countering Violent Extremism, NSEERS, mass surveillance, religious profiling) that cast the entire American-Muslim population under suspicion. Policies which considered every Muslim guilty until proven innocent, and which created the space for anti-Muslim sentiment to grow to unprecedented levels.

Today as we remember the victims of 9/11, let us never forget to question those in authority, and hold them accountable for their policies, both domestic and foreign, past and present, for which ordinary Americans and innocent civilians around the world have had to pay the price.

WHAT MUSLIM SCHOLARS OWE AFGHANISTAN

Source: Shutterstock

By Mehlaqa Samdani

At their first press conference, the Taliban promised to uphold the rights and freedoms of women, the media, and civil society in Afghanistan within the framework of the Shariah. This left many wondering how the Taliban would choose to implement the Shariah this time around, given their brutal and regressive interpretation of the 1990’s?

 At a time when the Taliban are desperately seeking international recognition and legitimacy, there is an opportunity for Muslim religious scholars and institutions to provide a theological framework that would push the Taliban to expand the rights of women and religious minorities. 

 While it is still early days, the Taliban seem intent to portray a softer image. They allowed some female presenters to get back on air and invited women to join their government. Two weeks ago, as they took over Kabul, a Taliban delegation attended a Muharram majlis, a Shiite commemoration of the martyrdom of Imam Hussain. It is believed they did so to appease Iran, which cultivated close ties with the Taliban over the past several years and is poised to support the new regime through trade and investment. Given the Taliban’s ideological revulsion to Shiites, this gesture indicates their willingness to sacrifice theological beliefs to advance strategic interests. 

However, there is only so much theological latitude they can display without risking pushback from their most hardline followers. It is important therefore for influential Muslim religious scholars to provide theological pressure, and in certain cases, theological cover that would allow the Taliban to make concessions on the rights of women and religious minorities. 

 The Taliban profess to follow the Deobandi version of Islam, which began as a revivalist movement in the Indian sub-continent as a response to British colonialism in the 19th century. Founders of the Deobandi school believed Muslims could only regain their identity, strength, and stature by returning to a strict and austere interpretation of Islam. The original Islamic seminary, Dar-ul-Uloom Deoband, was established in Deoband, India, in 1866—since then, thousands of Deobandi madrassas have emerged across the world with perhaps the highest concentration in South Asia.  

It was during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan that Deobandi madrassas were set up along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, with coordination and funding provided by Pakistan’s ISI, the CIA, and Saudi petrodollars. Students were churned out by the thousands to wage jihad against the ‘godless Soviets’. These later became the Taliban. 

 In the post 9/11 context, many religious organizations in the Muslim world have sought to counter the theological arguments put forth by militant organizations to justify their actions. In 2008, the Dar-ul-Uloom Deoband issued a fatwa against terrorism at a conference attended by 10,000 senior clerics. The organizers also called on clerics across South Asia to endorse their fatwa as a way to influence the Pakistani and Afghan Taliban. 

In addition, leading Muslim scholars from across the theological spectrum have come together to develop norms and consensus around issues such as sectarianism, Amman Message, 2005; the rights of religious minorities in Muslim-majority countries, Marrakesh Declaration, 2016; and to denounce extremism and promote religious diversity and pluralism, Charter of Makkah, 2019. 

It is now critically important that the Organization for Islamic Cooperation (OIC) convene an emergency session with the participation of religious scholars from across the Muslim world—they should call on the Taliban to protect the rights of women, and govern in the spirit of the Amman Message, the Marrakesh Declaration, and the Charter of Makkah. The initial OIC statement issued after the fall of Kabul is encouraging: 

“There is an urgent need to contain the fall out of ongoing political instability to preempt chaos and violence and restore the rule of law, democratic institutions, and constitutional protections to uphold fundamental freedoms and human rights in all circumstances, which is also in accordance with egalitarian Islamic values and universal human rights standards”

Now that they are in a position to govern and in need of international support, the Taliban are more likely to be receptive to mainstream conceptions of human rights as practiced in many Muslim-majority countries. While these are not perfect by any standard, this would certainly be a step forward. 

Pan-Islamic organizations and Muslim religious institutions must step up to prevent the Taliban from engaging in the excesses they perpetrated last time they were in power. They owe the people of Afghanistan nothing less. 

FROM HUBRIS TO HUMILIATION: THE U.S. CAMPAIGN IN AFGHANISTAN

August 16, 2021

By Mehlaqa Samdani

For those who believe the U.S. should intervene militarily in other countries and bring about regime change, install puppet governments, and shape societies in its own image, America’s 20-year debacle in Afghanistan should serve as a stark warning. With little knowledge of local culture, politics, traditions, American neo-colonial experiments in nation-building do more harm than good.

Back in 2019, the Afghanistan Papers posted by the Washington Post had revealed the colossal failure of America’s nation-building efforts in Afghanistan. In a war where various U.S. government agencies were confused about their ultimate mission, more than 47,000 Afghan civilians died, 66,000 Afghan security forces were killed, and 2,448 American soldiers lost their lives. A 2017 Human Rights Watch report found that for two-thirds of Afghan girls, school continued to be inaccessible.

For those who believe everything the U.S. government tells them about its misadventures abroad, should know that governments, both Democrat and Republican, lie to their people--it is an obvious point, and yet, our gullibility and failure to hold our governments accountable result in the death and displacement of tens of thousands around the globe. It is now well-known that even though successive American administrations knew the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) were not ready to counter the Taliban, they perpetuated the lie that the ANSF were an independent and self-sufficient force. In the end, the ANSF were ill-equipped, ill-paid, ill-fed, and poorly supported by the Afghan government even as they tried to thwart Taliban advances.

There is enough blame to go around. Without Pakistan’s continued support to the Afghan Taliban, they probably would not have been able to survive all these years. However, the stunning speed with which the Taliban took over the entire country in a matter of weeks, demonstrates that local conditions were ripe for their return. Over the past few years, ordinary Tajiks, Uzbeks, Turkmens, and Hazaras, traditionally opposed to the Taliban had begun to join their ranks, increasingly frustrated by corrupt government officials and the lack of basic services and governance. It was therefore relatively easy for the Taliban to take over these areas in the north which had previously put up stiff resistance.

For those in Pakistan gleefully welcoming the return of the Afghan Taliban, please know that the Pakistani Taliban currently in Afghanistan will feel further emboldened to attack Pakistan. Before they were dislodged by the Pakistani military in 2014 and fled to Afghanistan to fight alongside their Afghan counterparts, they succeeded in killing tens of thousands of Pakistanis.

Now that the Afghan Taliban are back in power, let’s hope Pakistan, Russia, and China use their limited leverage to curtail the group’s draconian excesses. It appears the Troika plus’s consensus earlier this year to not recognize any regime that violently seizes the seat of government, perhaps influenced the Taliban’s decision to negotiate a peaceful transfer of power after entering Kabul.

The Current Wave of Violence in Palestine/Israel

May 15, 2021

Civilian deaths continue to climb. Over the past week, 119 Palestinians have been killed across the occupied territories and more than 10,000 displaced from their homes in Gaza. 9 people have been killed in Israel.

Our hearts go out to friends who have family and relatives in Palestine and Israel, living under the constant threat of violence and death in this latest conflagration. Tragically, we know innocent civilians will continue to be killed until the international community intervenes to de-escalate the situation.

And yet, even when this cycle of violence comes to an end, it will most likely repeat itself unless the structural violence, at the heart of this issue, is addressed. Occupation breeds segregation, apartheid, intolerance, and violence. The visuals below by Human Rights Watch and Visualizing Palestine demonstrate just one dimension of the injustice. Full report here

The prospect of forced displacement of Palestinian families at Sheikh Jarrah, and Israeli police brutality at Al-Aqsa became the trigger this time. Next time, it will be something else. And so it will continue until every human being between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea is acknowledged as an equal citizen, free from occupation, and with the equal right to live in dignity, peace, and security.

Helping the Oppressed and the Oppressor

February 4th, 2021

Mehlaqa Samdani

Recently, the U.S. Council of American-Muslim Organizations, which includes the Council on American Islamic Relations, the Islamic Council of North America, and others, called on the Organization for Islamic Conferenceto break its silence over China’s treatment of its Muslim Uighur population. The OIC, an international body made up of 57 Muslim-majority countries, meets regularly to discuss matters of concern to Muslim communities around the world. While it regularly and rightly calls out India, Israel, Myanmar and other countries on their persecution of Muslim communities, it has so far been muted in its response to the Chinese government’s atrocities against its Uighur population.  

While these organizations were right to pressure the OIC to call out China, they would do well to also condemn OIC member states on their human rights records. American-Muslim organizations strive to improve the civil rights and liberties of American-Muslims and promote the equal treatment of Muslims under the law. They are therefore uniquely positioned to understand how in many Muslim-majority countries, religious minority groups are treated like second-class citizens. 

As an American-Muslim, I have worked to counter societal and structural Islamophobia through educational programming and dialogue. In addition, I have tried to raise awareness around injustices against Muslims around the world. However, as somebody who grew up in Muslim-majority Pakistan and who follows trends in other parts of the Muslim world, it is not lost on me that many Muslim governments and societies persecute, oppress, and discriminate against religious minorities. 

Whether its Ahmadis, Hindus, or Shias in Pakistan, the Copts in Egypt, the Bahai’s in Iran, or the non-existence of religious freedoms for non-Muslims in Saudi Arabia, it is clear that many countries in the Muslim world have failed their religious minorities. On a religious discrimination score, political scientist, Jonathon Fox found that Muslim-majority countries scored four times higher than Christian-majority countries.[1]

American-Muslims organizations understandably hesitate to acknowledge these facts, given the rising tide of Islamophobia in the U.S.--they do not further want to draw attention to these issues. Similarly, protecting the rights of minority groups has historically been used to advance colonial interests and justify western interventions in Muslim lands. This is therefore a sensitive topic that needs careful handling. 

However, it is my contention that American-Muslim organizations must grapple with them for a variety of different reasons. 

In a well-known prophetic tradition, Prophet Mohammad urged his followers to help both the oppressed and the oppressor within the growing Muslim community. While people around him understood why it was important to help the oppressed, they wondered why and how they should help the oppressor. To this the Prophet responded: “By preventing him from oppressing others”. 

Other than it being a religious obligation and a humanitarian imperative to stop oppression, there are practical aspects to consider as well. 

Very often, the discourse surrounding Islamic norms and practices is dominated by Islamophobes and militant organizations who reinforce the essentialist notion that Islam is inherently violent and targets religious minorities. It is important for American-Muslims to reclaim this narrative and offer a more nuanced analysis.

It is also critical to engage the next generation of American-Muslims in this conversation. Many find it difficult to reconcile the discrepancies between the Islam their parents have raised them in and the regressive practices prevalent in Muslim countries around the world. 

What role can American-Muslim organizations play in this regard? 

The first step is to facilitate national conversations among American-Muslims around this contentious issue. Many Muslims lack the religious literacy and sociopolitical knowledge to have a more contextualized understanding of this issue that ultimately shapes perceptions about Muslims and Islam. 

It is also necessary to discuss ways in which American-Muslims can advance the rights of minority groups in their countries of origin. While 20% of American-Muslims are African-Americans, 75% of the American-Muslim population are immigrants and children of immigrants. Many have strong links to their countries of origin through family ties, remittances, and motherland politics. These American-Muslims can play significant roles in their birth countries by investing in local organizations that work to promote religious pluralism and equal citizenship. 

It is also important for American-Muslim organizations to call on the OIC to organize conferences around the rights of religious minorities in the Muslim world. Grassroots activism in Muslim majority-countries can be greatly helped by regional and global, Muslim-led efforts to create norms around social justice issues. 

The Marrakesh Declaration of 2016 was a Muslim-led effort that brought more than 300 scholars, intellectuals, and jurists from around the Muslim world to advance the rights of minority groups in Muslim-majority countries. While the OIC praised the initiative, this was not an OIC-led effort and has not yet found traction in Muslim-majority countries.  There are many Muslim jurists and theologians around the world who have been working on the rights of religious minorities--it is important to highlight their voices under the auspices of the OIC. 

For years, American-Muslim organization have enjoyed the support of allies who have combatted Islamophobia alongside the American-Muslim community. Those of us who are immigrants and maintain ties to our countries of origin, it is time we expressed similar solidarity with minority groups there who do not enjoy the same freedoms we do. 

[1] Daniel Philpott, ‘Religious Freedom in Islam: The Fate of a Universal Human Right in the Muslim World Today’, Oxford University Press, 2019

Critical Connections' Statement on George Floyd's Murder

June 5th, 2020

An American Virus

Racism is a virus that kills Black Americans. George Floyd’s brutal murder on Memorial Day weekend by four Minneapolis police officers is the most recent example of the police brutality and institutional racism that the Black community has suffered for decades in our country. While Black Americans make up only 13% of the population, they are 2.5 times as likely to be killed by police. More than a thousand people are killed by police every year, and in 99% of those cases police officers are neither charged nor convicted. We can only hope that the recent charging of the four police officers responsible for Mr. Floyd’s death will mark the beginning of a new era of police accountability. 

The level of fear Black men experience when it comes to interactions with law-enforcement can be summed up in the story a Black mother shared at one of our events a few years ago. She spoke briefly about the racism she and her family had experienced in western Massachusetts, but she was more eager to share the pride she felt in her young adult son, who had recently begun college in Boston.
 
One of the first things this young man did upon arriving in Boston was to visit the local precinct. He introduced himself to the officers there so that they would know that he was just a college student. He explained that he did not want a routine encounter with the police to turn deadly because he was unfamiliar to them.
 
The police officers were stunned and deeply moved by this gesture, and the meeting ended with everyone holding hands and praying together.
 
Many of us who were there that day in Easthampton were forced to consider the ugly reality that this story exposed. 
 
What does it say about us as a society that a young Black man has to prove his humanity to those in authority, simply to stay alive? 

While police accountability is paramount, the reckoning that is required in this moment should not only be limited to law-enforcement. Even as we work to dismantle structures of oppression that perpetuate racism in our institutions, it is also time to reckon with the racism within ourselves, our families, our faith communities, our organizations, and our schools.
 
We are infected. In order to heal, we have to know better, be better, and do better. 

Warm regards,
Mehlaqa Samdani

RESOURCES:

CAMPAIGN ZERO: An organization dedicated to ending police brutality through data-driven policies and initiatives. Their most recent initiative, 8 Can't Wait,outlines 8 policies that are proven to reduce police violence by 72% - demand action from your local representatives and police chiefs around these measures. 

EMBRACE RACE: An Amherst-based national organization that facilitates conversations around race, particularly geared towards parents, educators, and caregivers--check out their work and sign up for their webinars

THE TRUTH SCHOOL: The Sojourner Truth School for Social Change offers anti-racism workshops across western MA--all their classes are taught by people of color. 

INDIVISIBLE: Their TAKING ACTION IN SOLIDARITY WITH BLACK LIVES MATTER page offers a wide range of resources, as well as specific calls for legislative action. 

The Context and Consequence of Qassem Soleimani's Killing

Mehlaqa Samdani

January 7, 2020

In the early morning hours of January 3, 2020, U.S. President Donald Trump ordered a drone strike against Qassem Soleimani, the leader of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards’ Quds Force.  For the past 22 years, Soleimani had led the elite military force and had been responsible for military operations outside Iran that targeted Iran’s enemies. Though considered a terrorist by the United States, Soleimani was a highly revered and celebrated figure in Iran and most lauded for his operations against ISIS in Iraq and Syria. 

The January 3 missile strike also killed Abu Mahdi Al-Muhandis, founder of Kataib Hezbollah, an Iran backed militia group in Iraq that had agitated against U.S. presence in the country. 

By all accounts, this move by the Trump administration marks a dramatic and dangerous escalation of hostilities between the United States and Iran and one that would be difficult to dial down as Iran prepares for retaliatory attacks against the United States.

1.    What were the series of events that led to Soleimani’s killing?

The latest round of tensions started in August 2019 when Hashd (the umbrella organization that Kataib and other groups are a part of), blamed Israel and the U.S. for drone attacks on its facilities--neither country claimed responsibility. On December 27, the U.S. blamed Kataib Hezbollah for an unclaimed attack on an Iraqi military base that killed an American contractor. Two days later, the U.S. struck Kataib forces in Iraq and Syria, killing 24 members of the group that led to the storming of the U.S. embassy on New Year’s Eve. Three days after that, the U.S. targeted Qassem Soleimani. 

2.    How will Iran and its proxies respond? 

Senior military officials in Iran have maintained that they will only target U.S. military sites in retaliation. Iran’s main partner in the region reinforced this position on January 6 when Hezbollah’s leader Hassan Nasrallah issued the following statement: 

“I want to be very clear, we don’t mean the American people. All across the region there are American citizens—traders, journalists, engineers, and doctors. They cannot be touched… any harm to U.S. civilians will only serve Trump’s agenda.”

However, it is unclear how other groups or militias in the region connected to Soleimani (but beyond Iranian government control) would act to avenge his death. 

Analysts believe the Iranian government will take its time before attacking U.S. interests so as to maintain the element of surprise. However, given Iran’s debilitated economic situation, it is highly unlikely that it would want a full-scale conflagration with the United States. 

Trump for his part, threatened to bomb 52 Iranian cultural sites if Iran retaliates—some of these landmarks are identified as World Heritage sites by UNESCO. If this threat is carried out, it would tantamount to a war crime under international law. With Trump’s threat widely condemned around the world, Pentagon officials scrambled to distance themselves from Trump’s assertion, emphasizing they will follow the laws of armed conflict.

3.    What strategic benefit did the U.S. gain from Soleimani’s death?

Even those bitterly opposed to Soleimani, are hard pressed to find any strategic benefit for the U.S. in his assassination. There are some, like Dexter Filkins of the New Yorker, who believe that Soleimani’s death dealt a ‘body blow’[1] to the Iranian regime and it will take time for the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps to recover from his loss.  However, IRGC expert Narges Bajoghli, believes that the institution is structured in a way where “decisions and actions don’t just come from one man or even a small group of men; many within the organization have experience building relationships, creating strategies and making decisions.”

In a recent interview, Middle East expert Meghan O’Sullivan[2], speculated one reason to target a leader as powerful as Soleimani might have been to precipitate the collapse of the Iranian regime. However, Soleimani’s death had the exact opposite effect, at least in the short-term. 

The Iranian government, that just three weeks ago was grappling with internal protests and anti-Iran protests in Iraq, appears to be now unified within and with Iraq in its mourning of a revered leader. Two days after the killing, the Iraqi parliament encouraged by outgoing Prime Minister Mahdi approved a draft bill calling for the withdrawal of American troops from the country. 

Soleimani’s killing has also exposed Americans to greater risk. Immediately following the drone strike, American citizens inside Iraq were urged to evacuate immediately.  Similarly, U.S.- led forces in Iraq and Syria announced a temporary pause in operations against ISIS to ensure security for themselves against a possible Iranian attack.  

4.    Why did the President choose to target Soleimani now?

It seems increasingly likely that this was an impulsive decision made hastily by President Trump. According to Rukmini Callamachi of the New York Times, the decision to launch the attack against Soleimani ‘was chaotic and….was the ‘far out option’ given to Trump by his advisors.  

According to a Times report: 

“Aides said Mr. Trump was angry about a rocket attack last week by forces linked to Tehran that killed an American civilian contractor and stewed as he watched television images of pro-Iranian demonstrators storming the American Embassy in Baghdad in the days that followed, neither of which would normally result in such a seemingly disproportionate retaliation.”

Contrary to what administration officials have been citing in support of the strike, Rukmini Callimachi reports that evidence of any imminent attack was ‘razor thin’. 

Members of the Trump administration will brief certain members of Congress on Wednesday on the threat Soleimani posed—this will be classified information and it remains to be seen if the bipartisan ‘Gang of Eight’ congressional leaders will be convinced by the evidence provided. After all, this briefing will come on the heels of Washington Post’s Afghanistan papers, which revealed how previous administrations kept the public and Congress in the dark about the failure of the reconstruction/war effort in Afghanistan. 

Many contend that this was a way for Trump to distract from impeachment proceedings and to get himself re-elected later this year. While it is difficult to determine what this president might be thinking, neither argument seems convincing. With impeachment already completed in the House, and the Senate process appearing to be a muddled and drawn out one, it does not seem likely that Trump feels particularly threatened by it all. Similarly, starting a war to rally support when the presidential election is still ten months away, does not make any sense. Simply put, it doesn’t appear as if Trump needed a diversion at this particular time. 

5.    Was the attack against Soleimani legal?

There is a broad consensus among legal experts that Article 2 of the U.S. constitution gives the president of the United States far-reaching authority to use military force abroad.  As long as the executive branch can prove that force was used to advance the national interest and that the military operation was limited in scope, the president’s action would be considered legal. Ultimately, however, there is a lot of latitude given to the executive branch in its interpretation and implementation of these conditions--historically both the judicial and legislative branches have been reluctant to curtail the president’s constitutional authority in this regard. The 1973 War Powers Resolution does require the president to cease the military operation within 60-90 days if it had been authorized without congressional approval.

In his detailed exploration of the legality of the drone strike that killed Soleimani, Brookings expert, Scott Anderson believes the Trump administration could argue that killing Soleimani fulfilled the national interest condition, given the military commander’s previous operations against the United States. However, given the risk of further escalation, it might be more difficult for the administration to prove that this operation was limited in scope. As Anderson points out, the president will mostly likely rely on statutory authorization to justify the strike against Soleimani. This authority is provided by the Authorization of the Use of Military Force (AUMFs) passed in 2001 and 2002—these were employed for use of force against Al-Qaida, affiliates and for operations in Iraq, and give the president extensive authority to use military force in the region. 

While American domestic law is very deferential to presidential authority on the use of force, international law is less so. UN Rapporteur on Extrajudicial Killings, Agnes Callamard denounced the strike as a clear violation of international human rights law. She went on to say:

“The targeted killings of Qasem Soleiman and Abu Mahdi Al-Muhandis are most likely unlawful and violate international human rights law: Outside the context of active hostilities, the use of drones or other means for targeted killing is almost never likely to be legal”

6.    Can the president’s war-making powers be curtailed?

In the summer of 2019, when congressional representatives from both parties were alarmed at the president’s sabre rattling with Iran, they proposed a bill as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act to block funding for war with Iran. While the amendment passed in the House, it only received 50 votes in the Senate. There are currently a number of bills planned that would allow Congress to reassert its authority with regards to the presidential use of force. 

Rep. Ro Khanna and Senator Bernie Sanders plan to re-introduce the above-mentioned bill once Congress is back in session this week. In addition, Nancy Pelosi is seeking a vote on the War Powers Resolution that will force debate and a vote on the need for congressional authorization for any use of force against Iran. The hope there is that with this dangerous escalation, and in anticipation of how Trump will respond after Iran retaliates, there will be more of an impetus for Congress to pass this bill. 

[1] Dexter Filkins interview on ‘Fareed Zakaria GPS’, Sunday, December 5, 2020

[2] Meghan O’ Sullivan interview on ‘Fareed Zakaria GPS’, Sunday, December 5, 2020

The Cost of American Hubris

Mehlaqa Samdani

December 11, 2019

For those who believe the U.S. should intervene militarily in other countries to save local populations, the Washington Post report on U.S. efforts to rebuild Afghanistan should serve as a sobering reminder. With little knowledge of local culture, politics, traditions, our neo-colonial experiments in nation-building do more harm than good. 

For those who believe everything the U.S. government tells them about its misadventures abroad, should know that governments, both Democrat and Republican, lie to their people--it is an obvious point, and yet, our gullibility and failure to hold our governments accountable result in the death and displacement of tens of thousands around the globe. 

For those who believe throwing money at a problem will solve it, should know that since it began in 2001, the war in Afghanistan has cost more than $975 billion. The Taliban remain undefeated, corruption has soared (indeed exacerbated by the billions poured in), and believe it or not, many Afghan women continue to wear burqas!

In a war where U.S. government agencies were confused about their ultimate mission, more than 43,000 Afghan civilians died. 2,300 American soldiers lost their lives, and more than 20,000 were injured. The Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America estimate that, on average, 20 veterans commit suicide every day. Medical and disability treatment for veterans will cost $1 trillion over the next 40 years. 

Yes, there are militant groups around the world that potentially pose a threat to the United States. However, endless occupations of countries to counter that threat is wrong and often backfires—until our elected leaders recognize their own complicity in aggravating the risk, disastrous campaigns with staggering human and economic costs will continue. 

Carnage on Easter Sunday and the Crisis Within

Source: Turkish Minute

by Mehlaqa Samdani

The carnage that took place during Easter Sunday celebrations in Sri Lanka was a terrible reminder of the havoc violent extremism can wreak in communities around the world. While details are still emerging and nobody has yet claimed responsibility, Sri Lankan authorities blamed the attack on a local extremist group, National Thowheed Jamath, with possible international links that made the coordinated attacks possible. 

This attack on the Christian community by a group of Muslim terrorists should serve as a reminder to Muslim religious and political leaders around the world that more vigilance is needed around the activities of preachers who incite violence against religious minorities, who propagate archaic and insidious interpretations of scripture, and who radicalize vulnerable minds to commit the kinds of atrocities that took at least 310 innocent lives over the weekend. 

We know that local Muslim leaders in Sri Lanka were aware that National Thowheed Jamath espoused violence towards non-Muslims and had even turned over documents about the group to local law-enforcement three years ago—while intelligence officials failed to act on this information, this is exactly the kind of proactive efforts needed from Muslim leaders and governments around the world. 

As Mehdi Hasan points out in The Intercept, here in the U.S. it is difficult to talk about the persecution of Christians by Muslims as it feeds into growing Islamophobia. However, as Hasan emphasizes, we cannot overlook the fact that of the top 10 countries where Christian communities are most persecuted, 7 are Muslim-majority. It is time we in the Muslim community reckon with this intolerance, violent and otherwise, and find ways to address it.

In January 2016, more than 300 religious scholars from around the Muslim world gathered in Morocco to sign the Marrakesh Declaration as a response to growing violence against religious minorities in Muslim-majority countries. This was a document based on the Charter of Medina promulgated by Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) that promoted equal citizenship for all and upheld the rights of religious minorities in 7th century Medina. Just as Muslim immigrant communities in Europe and the United States advocate for the preservation of their civil rights and liberties, they must call on their countries of origin to implement the Marrakesh Declaration, and ensure that religious minorities are protected from societal, legal, and political discrimination. The Quran has a clear message for Muslims: 

“Believers! Be upholders of justice and bearers of witness to truth for the sake of Allah, even though it may either be against yourselves or against your parents and kinsmen, or the rich or the poor: for Allah is more concerned with their well-being than you are. Do not, then, follow your own desires lest you keep away from justice. If you twist or turn away from (the truth), know that Allah is well aware of all that you do” (4:135)

We Muslims would do well to follow our own scripture, and begin to address the injustice those among us commit. 

ONE TWEET, MULTIPLE OPPORTUNITIES

Photo Credit: Ray Dehn | by Tony Webster

February 13, 2019

Mehlaqa Samdani

A brief note on how one tweet gave rise to multiple opportunities:

1.    The opportunity to recognize that there will always be anti-Semites around us and among us who use Israel to spew their hatred of Jews. Similarly, there will always be those around us and among us who use every legitimate and justified criticism of the Israeli Occupation, Israeli policies, and of AIPAC as a way to label people as anti-Semites. It is up to us to find the peacemakers in our respective communities who are interested in making real progress—in this case, it would be the “Jewish allies and colleagues” that Ilhan Omar referred to in her apology for educating her on anti-Semitic tropes, and the Jewish leaders AOC admired for the way they “brought her (Omar) in, not push her out, to heal." These are the kinds of people we should be seeking out within our own communities for wisdom and guidance. 

2.    The opportunity to recognize that a true leader demonstrates that there is no shame in an apology, there is no shame in accepting we have room to grow—it is possible to call out the corrupting influence of lobbyists in ways that are constructive, effective, and sensitive

3.    The opportunity to recognize that many of us do not know enough about anti-Semitic tropes and would do well to learn more about them by reaching out to our Jewish friends. This is especially important when attacks against the Jewish community have dramatically increased and the Jewish community feels increasingly vulnerable. 

4.    The opportunity for all of us to stand up to bullying in whatever shape or form it occurs, whether it is attempts to criminalize/penalize BDS or the incessant attacks on Congresswomen Omar and Tlaib for their pro-BDS stance. 

5.    Finally, this is an opportunity to recognize that if seized effectively, such moments can result in greater engagement, greater learning, and ultimately transformation among well-intentioned people.