Defenders of the Faith

Repercussions from the terrorist bombings of two American embassies in Africa and the retaliatory U.S. airstrikes against suspected terrorist targets in Afghanistan and Sudan continued to reverberate this week among Muslims in America.

Many worry that, despite their frequent disavowals of terrorism and those who perpetrate violence in the name of Islam, they will become innocent victims of suspicion and even hate crimes.

Once again, they said, facile generalizations, sound bites that substitute for discourse, and fear that replaces facts have put them on the firing line.

For Muslims in the United States this is especially frustrating, they said, in part because they support democratic values. Many are American citizens.

At the same time, while repeatedly saying there is never a legitimate reason for killing innocent people, many U.S. Muslims support the Palestinian desire for a separate homeland and are bothered by what they see as a one-sided American foreign policy that favors Israel while supporting undemocratic regimes in predominantly Muslim countries.

This week, Times religion writers Larry B. Stammer and Teresa Watanabe questioned Muslim religious and political leaders in separate interviews. The following are excerpts. Those responding were Hussam Ayloush of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Anaheim; Salam Al-Marayati, director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council in Los Angeles; and Maher Hathout, a physician and spokesman for the Islamic Center of Southern California in Los Angeles.

Why have Muslim fundamentalists moved toward terrorism against the United States?

Maher Hathout: We are dealing with two issues. The first is: Why should some Muslims be angry? The other is: Why should they express their anger this way? I think the main factor is despair. The fact that they feel their lives are not important to anybody, so why should the lives of others be important to them? Of course, this is no justification [for terrorism]. I am just trying to read the psychology that would move someone to do something heinous like that [the embassy bombings].

Salam Al-Marayati: There are legitimate grievances throughout the Muslim world concerning democracy, human rights, the pursuit of justice and economic development that the fundamentalists would exploit toward illegitimate means, i.e. terrorism, as a means to raise international attention to these issues. . . . So terrorism is a reflection of despair.

I think U.S. policy as it stands now is based on certain pillars. No. 1 is the basic favoring of Israel and the double standards that emanate from it. 2. Interest in oil profits. Oil from the [Persian] Gulf is controlled by Western corporations. 3. Protecting Arab dictatorships, such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia and, before the Gulf War, Iraq. This preserves their power over the people as opposed to democratic reform. By that I mean not a theocracy but a true egalitarian democracy, such as Turkey. Muslims see U.S. military intervention as the primary option for dealing with problems in the Muslim world. It gives Muslims the feeling that they are treated with an iron fist by the U.S. when other countries, such as Serbia, Israel, India, are treated with the velvet glove.

Hussam Ayloush: Why do a lot of Muslims have a case against the U.S.? Most Muslims have no problem with the American people. In fact, 8 million Muslims are part of the American people. But we believe U.S. policy toward Muslim countries and maybe Middle East countries specifically is not evenhanded. It has been marred by double standards and blind and unconditional support of Israel, even many times at the expense of U.S. national interests. We all know the current Israeli government is behind the delay in implementing the peace process, whereas the U.S. government . . . is not daring to exert any pressure so as not to displease U.S. Jewish voters. A lot of people feel betrayed by the U.S.

Another aspect is the double standards we see--the way the U.S. is treating Iraq and Israel. A U.S.-led embargo has been imposed on the Iraqi people--not the government, the Iraqi people--to implement one U.N. resolution [to eliminate weapons of mass destruction]. Israel is in violation of at least a dozen U.N. resolutions on the occupation of Jerusalem, the West Bank, Gaza, Golan Heights, the treatment of refugees. . . . In fact, every time this issue is discussed in the U.N., the U.S. imposes its veto power. We agree that if someone continues to violate U.N. resolutions, if everyone agrees to impose a punishment, this should be applied to everyone. We cannot pick and choose, based on domestic politics.

In what position does terrorist acts put American Muslims?

Ayloush: There is some recklessness on the part of the media. The position you put us in is not easy. By saying Islamic terrorists hit so-and-so, by labeling criminal acts with religion, you are putting followers of that religion on the defensive. We don’t feel we need to speak out, except we feel we’re put into that position the minute you link Islam with terrorism. But things are much better now. Most people now go out of their way to differentiate terrorism and Islam. The level of awareness has increased.

Al-Marayati: In a precarious position. On the one hand, innocent civilians are being harmed. We feel the trauma of witnessing these acts of violence. To witness them in the name of our religion is equally, if not more, troubling. We understand the grievances that Muslims throughout the world, as well as people throughout the world, have in trying to address those grievances to our [U.S.] leaders out of patriotic duty as Americans. . . . Sometimes we feel excluded from the decision-making process. That in itself results in poor policy or no policy.

Hathout: It puts American Muslims in difficult positions. What is frustrating to me personally is that, 1. You feel the name of your religion is tarnished. 2. You feel your need to continue to explain yourself, which is an awful feeling. 3. Those who do not have the ability to think clearly will do something foolish [against us]. . . . Sometimes I feel people are not taking us seriously when they say, “Why don’t you condemn terrorism?” We have. But why doesn’t the pope apologize for Ireland. Why doesn’t the Board of Rabbis apologize for [violent assaults] on Palestinians? Somehow, Muslims are more cornered and more in need of having to explain themselves.

Are American Muslim leaders calling on their counterparts in Islamic countries to speak out against terrorism?

Al-Marayati: They already have, so there’s really no need to tell them to do that. The Organization of Islamic Conferences did that three or four months ago, in 55 countries. They issued a stand against terrorism, and especially violence in the name of religion.

Hathout: Sheikh Mohammad Sayed Tantawy is the grand imam of Al Azhar University in Egypt, the highest-ranking and oldest university in the Muslim world. He has unequivocally condemned terrorism and said these [embassy attacks] are acts that would only be committed by a savage. He said it was a criminal act that cannot be done except by cowards and low people. This is a strong condemnation for a religious official like him to make.

Are U.S. Muslim leaders fearful of repercussions if they speak out against Islamic terrorism too forcefully?

Ayloush: No, none whatsoever. These are small minority groups.

Al-Marayati: No. Absolutely not. It strikes at the core of our religious principles. I think terrorism is terrorism and injustice is injustice, regardless of who the culprit is. For example, after the East African embassy bombings, we issued our condemnation of the bombings within an hour. We had a prayer service for the victims and for peace, and we had a blood drive, co-sponsored with the American Red Cross, to help save lives in the Koranic tradition that says if you save one life it is as if you are saving all of humanity. Do we fear for speaking out? No. I don’t think so. I think we’re more concerned about the backlash here by hate groups. The feeling is [that] if you expose yourself, you became a target for racists in America.

Hathout: My commitment is to the truth, regardless of who will be happy and who will be unhappy, Muslim or non-Muslim. But I can’t speak for other people.

In Islam, is violence ever justified in keeping with Koranic thought?

Ayloush: “Jihad” does not mean “holy war.” It comes from the Arabic word jihada, to struggle--with your time, your money, yourself. When we are attacked as Muslims, we are given the right to defend ourselves, but not allowed to be the aggressors. The Koran says: “Fight for the sake of God those who fight against you, but do not attack them first. God does not love aggressors.” If [the embassy bombings] were done by so-called Muslims, they’re either maniacs who didn’t need a justification, or people who were under the wrong understanding or judgment that this was self-defense. The killing of the innocent is never self-defense.

Al-Marayati: Only in terms of self-defense, defending your country after you have been attacked. Even then your military response is limited to combatants.

Hathout: Violence is justified in [several] categories. If someone fights and attempts to convert me by force away from Islam, or to drive me out of my land, or to oppress people, those are the three conditions. If the last resort is fighting, then Muslims would fight. It is the same theology as that of the “just war” in Christianity. The Koran is very categorical about it. Except for these conditions, you are not supposed to use violence.