The Orlando Massacre: The Context, The Aftermath, The Challenge and The Opportunities
By Professor Nazeer Ahmed
Concord, CA

 

A lone gunman shoots up 49 innocent men in a bar in Orlando, Fla and injures 53 others. International media report that the man is a 29-year-old former security guard, an American citizen of Afghan parentage who carries a Muslim name. Some reports indicate that he is gay and a heavy drinker.

The aftermath of this horrific and tragic shooting is almost predictable. The mainstream media spin the complex, multi-dimensional identity of the gunman, focus on his Muslim name and offer an Islamophobic narrative suggesting that it was yet another case of so-called Islamic terrorism. The FBI, after its preliminary investigations, labels it a hate crime.

The occasion provides an opportunity for Donald Trump to up his anti-Muslim rhetoric and double up on his call to halt immigration from Muslim countries. He calls for profiling of Muslims. Hillary Clinton sounds presidential but asserts that there is a jihadist ideology out there that must be contained. She calls on Saudi Arabia to reform its schools that encourage extremist tendencies.

Not to be left out of the mayhem, the notorious ISIS takes credit for the crime, overlooking the drinking background of the shooter who frequented gay bars, thereby exposing the falsehood of its claims that it is the champion of a puritanical life.

The American Muslim community is overwhelmed with shock, horror and sorrow. The massacre comes on the heels of the funeral of Muhammad Ali and the positive worldwide coverage accompanying the death of this great man. Islam seemed to get a breather from the vitriolic homophobes. But it was not to be. From the Muslim leadership, religious and secular alike, the usual patterns of denunciation of the crime and distancing from the ideology of violence have followed. The question is: Are mere handwringing, denunciation and pious quotations enough? Can more be done?

Events such as the tragic massacre provide historic opportunities for a community for soul searching and evolving creative paths for the unfolding future. We will briefly explore some of these opportunities.

Donald Trump’s call to ban the entry of Muslims into the United States is not of immediate concern. A ban on Muslims will be hard to enforce and will cost the US economy billions of dollars a year. It will have worldwide repercussions on American business. There will also be legal challenges to the ban. The restrictions, if they do materialize, will not be the first. There is a history of ambivalence towards immigration in America. While immigrants have provided the energy for the economic and technological growth of America, they have often been perceived as adding to unemployment and increased healthcare and other social costs. The Irish, Poles, Italians, Jews, Chinese and the Japanese each had to face their share of discrimination and work their way into the mainstream. Neither has assimilation prevented racial profiling and targeted persecution as evidenced by the internment of Japanese Americans during WWII. Prior to 1965, each Asian and African country had an immigration quota of 100 while immigration from Western Europe was unrestricted. It was only after Robert Kennedy became the Attorney General of the United States that the restrictions were lifted and immigration was opened to all countries.

Looking ahead to the November elections, the Muslim community, albeit small, can make a difference in the swing states of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, North Carolina and Virginia. This is no time to stand on the sidelines. Every capable person must be involved and defeat the rising tide of anti-Muslim hysteria. There is going to be no grand person leading the charge. The effort must be local, precinct by precinct, ward by ward. The immediate task is to build bridges to other voting groups, especially the Latino community. I can testify from my own run for United States Congress in 1992 from the 46 th Congressional District in California that the Latino vote can swing an election and can make or break a candidacy. This vote will become even more important, perhaps decisive as time goes on.

A greater challenge is the relationship of Muslims with the LBGT community. It is a sensitive subject, one that is risky to handle for any leader lest it invite the wrath of a large segment of the community. But handle it one must. The Orlando massacre has brought this issue into the open; it cannot be kept under wraps any more. In a profound sense, the issue touches upon the interaction between a sacred personal domain and a secular public domain in a civil society.

The LBGT community is the object of hate in many parts of the country. Discriminatory laws are on the books of several states. They deny basic rights including children’s access to bathrooms. These hateful laws are primarily targeted at school children and are designed to marginalize them and to make their daily lives difficult, indeed unbearable so that the children quit public school. In other parts of the country the LBGT community enjoys equal rights. From a religious perspective, the guidance is obvious. The choices before an individual Muslim in America are these: (1) be passive and obey the laws in the state where he lives, (2) actively support the rights of all citizens irrespective of their sexual orientation, (3) oppose LBGT rights as do some ultra-conservative Christian, Muslim and Jewish groups.

The choices go to the very heart of Ijtihad. How is the process of evolution of jurisprudence to take place? Who is authorized to do it? These far reaching questions have haunted the great Islamic reformers through the centuries. In the twentieth century Allama Iqbal of Pakistan and the poet Zia of Turkey tackled them. So did Imam Khomeini in Shia Iran. Iqbal took the position that legislation is the privilege of the common man and a duly elected legislative body representing a Muslim electorate has the authority to exercise the privilege of Ijtihad. The position of Zia was similar. Khomeini advanced the idea of Vilayat and vested the privilege of ijtihad in Shia scholars.

What is the acceptance of the LBGT community among American Muslims? According to a research study http://reason.com/blog/2016/06/13/in-america-muslims-are-more-likely-to-su , the acceptance has increased from 38 percent in 2008 to 52 percent in 2016. This compares with 77 percent acceptance among Jews, 84 percent among Buddhists, 68 percent among Hindus, 28 percent among Evangelical Christians and 26 percent among Mormons. If the legislative process recommended by Allama Iqbal applies, the American Muslim community would approve legislation in favor of LBGT rights. This is a startling conclusion for many Muslims

More in-depth research into the subject reveals the gut-wrenching questions that psychologists try to sort out: Is homosexuality inborn in people? Is it “hard wired” at birth by God? Or, is it an acquired characteristic detested by God? Opinions on these issues are divided along partisan lines.

I doubt if the two camps, those arguing the issue from a religious perspective and those arguing it from a secular perspective, will agree. There needs to be a clear demarcation between private beliefs and public morality. Private beliefs are the privilege of the individual. Each person, be he a Muslim, Christian, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, a believer or a disbeliever, is entitled to his beliefs. Faith is not the business of the state. However, in the shared public space, where people of different faiths or no faith interact and work together, justice tempered with mercy must prevail for all citizens irrespective of their race, creed, ethnicity, national origin and orientation. Specifically, this must apply to the LBGT community as well.

America is a unique experiment in human history, a crucible of peoples and ideas. Hate is un-American. It is un-Islamic. God is the God of mercy. According to a Hadith, the mercy of God preponderates His wrath. One human is not the moral judge of another. God alone is the judge.

Accordingly, I call upon Muslim organizations to pass a Declaration of Universal Human Rights along the following lines: “The American Muslim community supports equal rights for all Americans without regard to race, color, religion, national origin, citizenship status, gender, gender expression or identity, sexual orientation, age, mental or physical disability”. This declaration is in accordance with Iman (faith), Adl (justice) and Ehsan (noble works); Iman for the individual, Adal and Ehsan in the shared public space of a civil society. It is also in consonance with the Bill of Rights.

Wa Allahu ‘Alam. Wa Astagfirullahu Rabbi.