American Muslims who disagree with the policies of the current Administration should leave the United States.
Americans who are Muslims, and many other Americans, disagree with some aspects of the foreign policies of the current Administration. The reaction of some "patriotic" Americans to the disagreement is to suggest that American Muslims should leave the United States if they do not like the current Administration's foreign policies.
Behind this "suggestion" are some implications. One implication is that only Christians can be true Americans. Another implication is that it is disloyal for Americans, Muslim or non-Muslim, to disagree with the foreign policies of the current Administration. These are serious matters, not just for the Muslims, but for all Americans, for they go to the heart of what it means to be an American and what America stands for.
The Pilgrims who established the first non-Spanish colony in America were fleeing religious persecution, though they themselves were not averse to imposing their religious views on other residents of the colonies. The founding fathers who wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States were Christians from various denominations. They were careful to not allow the state to interfere with the church and also to not allow the state to become an instrument of the church by allowing one denomination to impose its views on others. They were probably influenced in that regard by recent history in Europe of wars and bloody massacres of one Christian denomination by another. They included in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution some broad statements about liberty, and the freedom to practice religion and the freedom from having someone else's religion imposed on one through the government. But even in their wildest dreams, they probably did not envisage a day when Muslims would be citizens of America.
Based on the background of the founding fathers, some patriotic Christian Americans insist that the government of America should be based on Christianity. The first question this raises is which denomination of Christianity, since the founding fathers represented multiple Christian denominations, Unitarians, Episcopal and others? The differences between Christian denominations and sects, the Protestants, Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox are large enough that they considered each other heretical, and made war and massacred each other. Even today, at least one Protestant denomination declares the Catholic Pope to be the Anti-Christ, and Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are regarded as heretical by mainstream denominations and vice-versa.
Did the founding fathers have some grand, sweeping visions for the new nation, or were they petty-minded parochials? If the latter, then the government of the US should reflect the Christianity and ethnicity of the writers of the Constitution, and it should be declared openly that the US should have laws and government of one denomination of White Anglo-Saxon Protestants only. But if one believes they had a grander vision for America, then Muslims can be citizens like Americans of other religions, denominations or ethnicity.
Some fundamentalist evangelistic Christians today argue that since Christians are a majority, they can use the democratic process to impose laws based on the Christian perspective on all others. This problem was recognized by at least one of the founding fathers, Jefferson, who considered this type of imposition to be the "tyranny of the majority". The Bill of Rights was passed to address this type of problem, to protect rights that the majority could not take away from the rest. The problem still remains, and is a cause of tension in American society. The difficulty is in defining the criteria and limits for what constitutes a "religious" point of view, of what is "immoral", and whether a religious majority in a democracy can impose its views of "morality" on those who do not subscribe to that religion.
It is argued by the same "patriotic" Americans that Muslims can not be loyal to America because of their affiliations to their countries of origin, and because of their identification with Muslims over the world, and because of their putting obedience to God ahead of government rules, laws and policies. Most Muslims in the US today immigrated within the last forty years or so, when the US eliminated its discriminatory immigration policy against non-white Asians and others. They have families and friends in their countries of origin, and retain an affiliation with them, which is as natural as an American living in France retaining feelings for America. Once a Muslim becomes a US citizen by taking a solemn oath of loyalty to the United States of America, the Muslim is then bound by Islam to honor that oath and be a loyal American citizen, with exceptions as for other Americans in unlawful and unjust matters, or disobedience to God.
There is no "special" country for Muslims, not even Saudi Arabia, to which they have an affiliation, as Israel is for Jews all over the world, which always takes precedence over America because of its religious significance, even for American Jews. Also, Muslims do not have a top religious leader like the Pope for all Catholics to whose religious authority they would be subject. Even as Jews and Christians identify with co-religionists in other countries, especially when they are persecuted or oppressed, so also Muslims have the feeling of brotherhood with Muslims in other countries, many of whom are subject to persecution, oppression, invasions and wars. Muslims, like Jews and Christians, are required to put God's commandment above every other rule, law and policy, and to do otherwise would be idolatry.
A problem arises when a rule, law or policy is unjust and contrary to God's commandment, in which case conscientious objection and opposition is appropriate, for example, opposition over the years by some conscientious Christians in the US to laws imposing slavery and segregation. In similar situations, American Muslims should act as the voice of conscience in opposing unjust and unfair laws, unbalanced foreign policies, and unjust wars against both Muslims and non-Muslims.
Must Americans who disagree with the policies of the current Administration leave the country? If this is a principle, we should have seen mass exodus of Republicans, including Rush Limbaugh, during the Democratic Bill Clinton's presidency, and mass exodus of Democrats, including Al Gore, when George W. Bush was elected to the presidency, and the Libertarians would be in permanent exile. Then why do some people tell Muslims to leave the US if they disagree with the foreign policies of the United States? This seems both inconsistent and contrary to what is accepted and expected of other Americans. Is it because of religious views or links to foreign countries? But then why are the Cuban exiles allowed to disagree with the Administration's policy towards Cuba, and why is the Jewish Israeli lobby allowed to disagree with Administrations when it feels that the Administration's policy is unfavorable to Israel, and then why have both lobbies have been allowed to exert great influence on American policy makers to change policies they disagree with? It would appear from the inconsistency that this "principle" is a false principle, a double standard, used selectively against Muslims by some for whatever agenda.
It has been argued by "patriotic" Americans that America's foreign policy is a special case because it based on America's strategic interests, and to disagree with foreign policy is tantamount to disloyalty, that it is unpatriotic to question American foreign policy. Some groups with an agenda would have American foreign policy treated like a sacred cow, not to be touched by other than themselves. And like sausage makers who do not want consumers to know what went into the making of the sausage and how it was made, so also the foreign policy makers do not want American citizens to know what went into the making of foreign policy. However, in May 2005, the Secretary of State, speaking on behalf of the President, admitted that for the past sixty years US foreign policy has been based on "false choices in the Middle East".
With this public admission, let us consider what went into making the foreign policy sausage, how American foreign policy is determined, who are the policy makers, and who has influence on the policy makers, and whether the reasons given are consistent with American principles and in America's strategic interest? There are situations where the policy is appropriate, but there are other situations where the reasons for the policy are questionable, and it should be the right of every American to question the reasons for the policy and be given an honest answer.
American foreign policy is not created by the direct vote or will of the American people. The politicians and bureaucrats put in place a foreign policy, and the average American citizen generally goes along with whatever it may be, without knowing too much about the reasons for the policy. But it is the average American citizen who pays for the politicians' foreign policy with his hard-earned tax dollars, and pays with his life and limb when foreign wars break out.
Who determines US government policies, be they related to business or foreign affairs? The form of government in America is a democratic republic, not a "democracy". A true democracy is one where every decision is made directly and solely by the people, and they existed only in the Greek city-states a couple of thousand years ago. In the democratic republic of the United States, people elect representatives to legislate and govern, and leave the policy making and governing in the hands of their elected representatives, including foreign policy.
It would be reasonable to expect that the representatives would base the policies on principles of what is good, fair and just. However, groups that might benefit from a policy or a change in policy will go to great lengths to lobby the representatives to pass legislation or adopt policies that favors their special interests. The officials and representatives in the Administration, Congress and Senate are also vulnerable to threats to withhold election funding or discredit them or support their opponents in elections, so they usually go along with powerful lobbyists and political action committees acting on behalf of special interest groups. By making contributions to election funds, trips abroad and other inducements, companies like Enron have been able to influence top politicians to give them unwarranted protection, exemptions and privileges. There is a similar situation with foreign policy.
Business lobbies have induced the politicians to pass laws and adopt policies that favor them at the expense of the citizenry (see editorial). Examples are the tobacco industry in matters of harmful effects of tobacco, and the energy industry like Enron in matters of fixing prices, and manufacturing companies who have led the export of manufacturing jobs to China. Similarly, the Cuban exile lobby has controlled relations with Fidel Castro's Cuba, while the Jewish Israeli lobby effectively controls America's Middle East policy. Should lobbies for greedy corporations control US business polices, and should lobbies for foreign countries control US foreign policy? Should an un-elected official in the Administration be the architect of the Iraq war?
It appears that the power of the people has been usurped from right under the American citizens' noses by lobbies, PACs and un-elected officials in the Administration. Lincoln wanted a government of the people, by the people, for the people, but in business and foreign policy matters, it has become a government of the lobbies, by the lobbies, for the parties that the lobbies represent, through using the politicians and bureaucrats, and at the expense of the American people and American principles. Perhaps it is time for the American people to take this power back from the usurpers: the lobbies, the PACs and un-elected officials?
One main element of American foreign policy immediately after WWII was the containment of Communism. This led to the Cold War with the U.S.S.R over decades, which included drawing smaller countries into either sphere of influence, or occupation as of Hungary and Afghanistan by the Soviets, and proxy wars supported by the US, like the mujahideen against Russian occupation of Afghanistan.
A constant element of American foreign policy is the support for Israel. During the Cold War, Israel was the main pro-American country in the Middle East, and the Arab-Israeli wars were also partly proxy wars, with each major providing military aid to its side. After the breakup of Soviet Russia and its demise as a superpower, the rationale for support of Israel changed to its being the only "democracy" in the Middle East, and its being available as a base for military action to protect the supply of oil from the Middle East. However, the real, unspoken, post-Cold War rationale is the controlling influence of Jewish and Israeli lobbies and political groups over the American Administration, Congress and Senate. This blind, one-sided support for Israel has brought the US in conflict with Palestinians and Muslims over the Holy Lands taken away and given to Jews for the state of Israel.
The US has used Muslims to fight Muslims, for example, in Somalia, the Pakistani and others were helping the multi-national forces. In the First Gulf War, the ostensible purpose was to help the Kuwaitis get back their country, bring democracy, and protect Saudi Arabia from Iraq, and many Muslim countries were on the side of the US. After this war, it appears that the American right-wing had come to regard Islam and Muslims as an antagonist, with a similar reaction from the Muslim countries.
One aspect of American foreign policy is the "false choices". American foreign policy makers have consistently violated the principles of liberty and democracy which they hold dear when it comes to within the US, but disregard in foreign policy matters, putting expediency ahead of principles. American Administration have been involved in the overthrow of Iran's democratic government of Mossadeg and its replacement by a monarch for Western oil interests. The free elections of Algeria would have led to an Islam-oriented government, but the US suborned the Algerian military to seize power to stop the Muslims from getting the reins of government. Monarchs like the Shah of Iran and dictators like Saddam Hussein, and the military government in Algeria were supported by the United States with monetary and military aid, even though what they represented was contrary to American principles, because it was thought it could benefit the US.
The false choices made by the US were to support dictatorships and non-democratic, harsh, autocratic regimes because they were pliable, and unlike free democracies, could be persuaded to go along with an Israel-centric US foreign policy, in return for US aid and support for the regime, to the detriment of the people of those countries, and the suppression of democracy. While the Administration now proclaims America to be the "beacon of freedom and democracy", democracy in the Middle East was set back fifty years by the American-supported overthrow of the democratic government of Mossadeg in Iran in 1953, and a king, the Shah of Iran, was installed to benefit American oil interests. It has now been realized belatedly by American foreign policy makers that installing and supporting dictatorships and autocratic regimes in the Muslim countries for the sake of oil and Israel is not a good long-term strategy. There remain two issues: moderating the blind, one-sided support for Israel, and the nature of democracy that Muslims countries should adopt and how?
After the end of the Cold War, statements have been made in support of Israel because of its claim to being a democracy similar to the US, and its military prowess in the midst of hostile neighbors. Like India, Israel is a democracy if one happens to belong to the majority group, Jew or upper caste Hindu. Other groups, like Arabs in Israel and the Occupied Territories, and the Untouchables in India, have a second-class status and limited rights, which is counter to the idea of a democracy, unless one believes in the Orwellian model of "Animal Farm", where some are more equal than others. Can a nation be considered a democracy if it enslaves another nation or group and deprives it of freedom and basic rights? This may have been the American model of democracy till the 1960s, until the Civil Rights movement led to the abolishment of legalized Segregation, and African-Americans were given their equal status and rights, but it certainly is not the American model of democracy in this day and age.
Israel's military prowess is cited as a reason for supporting it. But a major factor is Israel's military success has been the large quantities of heavy and relatively sophisticated weaponry it had received from the British and Russians in its early wars, and later from the United States. While it won the 1967 war by a surprise attack, in the 1973 Yom Kippur war, the Egyptians crossed the Sinai and drove the Israelis back to the borders of Israel, before running out of weapons and ammunition. It was only a massive airlift of weapons and ammunition by the United States to Israel during the war that enable Israel to recover and drive the spent Egyptians back. It is not Israeli military prowess, but the most sophisticated heavy weaponry in the world that has been given free to Israel by the United States, which allows Israel to hold its own against its more numerous but poorly equipped and trained opponents. America has also turned a blind eye towards the development and stockpiling of nuclear weapons by Israel, which has been yet another destabilizing factor in the Middle East.
The Secretary of State said in May 2003 that "Israel has no greater friend and no stronger supporter than the United States of America". But America is not a true friend of Israel, the friendship is only at the first level, which is based on mutual benefits, and can even be self serving , but it can not withstand criticism. The higher true level of friendship is when the friend can criticize and correct without fear of offending or taking offence. MADD (mothers against drunk driving) and others have the slogan "Friends do not let friends drive drunk". This level of friendship does not exist between the US and Israel, for the US, represented by its politicians and the Administration, is afraid of criticizing and correcting Israel, because they are afraid of political action by AIPAC against them, including being labeled anti-Semitic. This has been to the detriment of the US over the years, for Israel's opponents hold the US responsible for Israel's actions, which the US dares not criticize even if they are felt to be ill-advised.
The remaining false choice that the Administration seems reluctant to admit, though recognized by its allies like Tony Blair, Prime Minister of Great Britain, is the unwillingness by successive American Administrations to address the issues at the root of the Arab-Israeli conflict . America can not be a mediator in the dispute until it adopts a more neutral position. While America is an economic and military superpower, unfortunately, its foreign policy is no better than that of a "Banana Republic". America needs to regain control of its foreign policy from the lobbies and PACs, who have effectively hijacked it, and make it consistent with its principles of fairness and justice for all. The foreign policy of the United States should be representative of the will of the American people, not of the PACs. If America acts more like a superpower in its foreign policy, then perhaps it will be able to bring a degree of peace to the Middle East. It is in America's strategic interest to adopt a neutral, fair, even-handed policy in the Middle East. However, the deeper problem is not solvable by today's politicians, who rely on force not justice. Because of the religious basis of the dispute over the Holy Lands, it will require the Scriptures and the wisdom of Solomon to pass judgment over rights to the Holy Land, like Solomon's judgment on the baby claimed by two women.
While acknowledging that the past 60 years of foreign policy was based on false choices, is the statement by the Secretary of State a declaration of intent to invade Muslim countries to remove their regimes by force and replace them with puppet democracies? If so, this would be yet another "false choice". And yet other "false choices" have already surfaced:
The structure of some of these societies in Muslim countries is still tribal and rural, and religious sects play a part, like Utah, which elects Mormon governors, and the religion of Islam and its rules are part of the identity of its peoples. To impose and force-fit the same exact process, structure, rules and butterfly ballots as in the US on the Muslim countries is to negate the whole idea of a representative democracy by the will of the people. The US needs to reduce its support for the autocratic regimes in Muslim countries, and encourage move them to an Islamic form of democracy, unless the intent is to undermine Islam by imposing a secular, anti-Islam form of democracy.
Democracy itself is not the panacea for all problems. Saddam Hussein's party came to power in Iraq through democratic elections, and the Nazi party with Hitler as its leader also came to power through democratic elections. Pakistan has held democratic elections between military dictatorships, and the results have hardly been impressive. Italy has changed governments frequently, sometimes more than once a year post-WWII. There needs to be a higher framework for democracy to be successful, and in the case of Muslim countries, it needs to be based in Islam.
Islam is the only religion in which "shura", or consultation with the people in their affairs, is part of the religion, unlike Christianity, in which Jesus, the founder of the religion, declared "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and render unto God what is God's", separating church from state. Islam is not a theocracy and clergy have no right to govern, but the leaders of the Muslims should be good Muslims as well as capable leaders and administrators, elected directly or indirectly by the will of the people, and the government itself is subject to the rule of law. The Prophet Muhammad provided guidance on the matter of government and leaders, and to do otherwise is to negate the teachings of Islam. None of the regimes that govern Muslim countries these days comply with the rules for a Muslim democracy.
With the end of the Cold War, the United States does not need Israel as its bastion against Communist influence in the Middle East. The "false choice" of supporting autocratic regimes in the Middle East to protect Israel has been recognized. However, to achieve peace in the Middle East will require a fair, even-handed, impartial foreign policy, a policy worthy of America's superpower status. Even though the Administration has recognized that a change in foreign policy is in order and in America's strategic interest, bringing about true change is a major challenge. In the past, only a handful of American politicians and religious leaders have had the courage to bell the cat. Perhaps with the Administrations acknowledgement of "purchasing stability at the price of liberty"(Muslims' liberty!) and "false choices", more American politicians and religious leaders will step forward and risk belling the cat for America's sake. And it is expected of American Muslims that they will act as the patriotic voice of conscience by reminding American politicians and religious leaders of the new direction American foreign policy needs to take in America's strategic interests, away from "false choices", old and new.
http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2005/46625.htm
Remarks at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's Annual Policy ConferenceSecretary Condoleezza Rice Washington Convention Center Washington, DC May 23, 2005 |
But by trying to purchase stability at the price of liberty, we achieved neither and we saw the result of that on a fine September morning. That is why President Bush has rejected 60 years of false choices in the Middle East. And as he said last week at the International Republican Institute, "The United States has a new policy, a strategy that recognizes that the best way to defeat the ideology that uses terror as a weapon is to spread freedom and democracy."