The Hijab Incident

          On November 13, 2009, Amal Abusumayah, was the victim of a hate crime when Valerie Kenney, a middle aged woman, tugged Amal’s hijab at a grocery store in Tinley Park, a southern suburb of Chicago. This incident is one of several that have made many Muslims in the United States feel unwelcome here and unable to exercise their constitutional rights even in a country where people are supposed have the right to practice their religion without fear of persecution. Many sources show that crimes against the Muslim community are growing rapidly. According to Amnesty International, “We are deeply concerned about the growing number of reports of crimes committed against Muslims … in the United States” (Stoddard and Gmerek). The victims are of both genders, mostly adult. Abusumayah was assaulted because she was wearing her hijab (headscarf), which is considered a religious symbol for Muslim women in general. Moreover, this incident has intimidated many Muslim girls who want to wear a hijab here in America. Many Muslim parents also feel that it is unsafe for their daughters who wear hijab to go out in public alone. Muslim women are an integral part of this society and have the right to express themselves as any other citizen under the umbrella of the law. This is indicates how Muslim women are unable to practice their religion freely in the land of free where the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion. It is clear that freedom of religion should apply to all people regardless of their faith here in the United States. Furthermore, a clear understanding of the religious principles of both Islam and Christianity could prevent acts of individual discrimination here.            

            The hijab incident happened a week after a shooting at Fort Hood Texas, where Nidal Hasan, a Muslim American army psychiatrist, murdered thirteen soldiers. Before Kenney tugged Amal’s hijab, she shouted, “The man that did that shooting in Texas was from the Middle East” (Janssen). Kenney was referring to Hasan’s Muslim background, because he was born to Muslim parents who emigrated from Palestine to the United States in the middle of the nineteenth century. The yanking of the headscarf incident showed that there are some Americans who believe that Muslims are to blame for the Fort Hood shooting. However, those people are too isolated to talk to a Muslim, or too stubborn to educate themselves about Islam which forbids the killing of innocents.                               

            Abusumayah was shocked about what occurred in that grocery store. As she stated, “I was shaken up, this is my dignity and this is my religion” (Schlikerman). This incident was the first experience of prejudice for her. Abusumayah decided to press charges. She said, “If I don't do this, in the future (violence) might escalate” (Schlikerman). Abusumayah reckons that bringing charges would prevent people from doing such acts, or at least improve the chance that people who are willing to assault Muslims will think twice before doing so. Michael J. O'Connell, the police commander in Tinley Park, suggests that people should report any crimes that occur to them. As he said, "If you don't try to stop it, the behavior will continue, they'll get the message they better not do it" (Schlikerman). O'Connell welcomed Abusumayah’s report, indicating that there may be some incidents that have not been reported. O'Connell verifies that police departments will prosecute anyone who is reported as having broken the law by violating the rights of Muslims. . O'Connell’s response on the hijab incident shows that the police do cooperate with all people, regardless of their faith or ethnicity, so that people should feel free to report any incident that occurs.                   

            Individuals like Hasan, or even a group of individuals, never represent a whole community. As Michael Moore writes, “Let’s face it, all religions have their whackos….But we don’t judge whole religions on just the actions of their whackos.” From this we conclude that Muslims should not be judged by the acts of al-Qaeda or any group that does not represent Muslims and do not even follow the principles of Islam. Al-Qaeda attacked the two Trade Center towers in the name of Islam. However, the teachings of Islam contradict what al-Qaeda did. As it says in the Quran, “Come and I will recite to you what your Lord has made forbidden for you[…]that you do not kill any person God has made inviolate - except with the right to do so. That is what He instructs you to do so that hopefully you will use your intellect” (06:151). This verse implies emphatically that Islam forbids the killing of innocent people regardless of their ethnicity or background.

            The headscarf incident has negative effects on the society. As a result of such Islamophobia exhibited in this incident, many Muslim women feel unsafe to practice Islam by wearing the headscarf. However, nuns and some Jewish women practice religion by wearing headscarves without having to worry about it. This comparison demonstrates the unfair treatment of Muslims in the United States. As Abdul Malik Mujahid claims, “the ugly tentacles of Islamophobia have penetrated places where Muslims have normally felt safe from it” (Mujahid). One of those places is Tinley Park, where the incident occurred. Arab Muslims have lived comfortably for decades in that suburb. However, after the incident of September 11 and the Fort Hood shooting, hate crimes have escalated. Kawthar Othman, who lives in that community and works as an editor-in-chief at Alhadath Aldawly Newspaper, shared her feelings with me by saying, “I have not faced any discrimination acts since the Fort Hood shooting, but after 9/11 I faced some of these prejudicial acts”(personal interview). This proves that some people are still generalizing and stereotyping according to a person’s color, race or religion.

            Abusumayah was not the intended target of this attack, but she happened to be there at that time. Probably, Kenney would have attacked anyone who looked like a Muslim woman, in reaction of the Fort Hood  shooting that had occurred a week before this incident, because the intended target was the hijab itself. The hijab is considered a symbol of modesty and chastity of Muslim women and by wearing the hijab  Muslim women are practicing their religion. Therefore, people must stop generalizing and learn the facts 

about religions before making any assumptions. Therefore, people should work together and resist all types of bigotry against any religion or group of people to heal the wounds which were created after September 11.   

Ground Zero Mosque: Why here? Why not here?

  

            The Ground Zero Mosque, or Park 51, has been a highly controversial issue in the mainstream media for the past several months. This controversy started when Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf announced his plan to build an Islamic community center close to Ground Zero, the site of the former World Trade Center. Many Americans oppose the project because they believe the ground is sacred, and 9/11’s memories remain fresh and bitter. Politicians are divided. Many Republican leaders are against it, while Democrats have different viewpoints on this issue; some support it and others do not. The wave of opposition to Park 51 shows the intolerance and discrimination against Muslims in the United States. The pressure to relocate the project is an example of Americans’ antagonism toward Muslims, which many politicians are trying to capitalize on. The First Amendment gives Americans the right to practice their religion without persecution. Therefore, Muslims should be allowed to build Park 51 at the proposed site because it is their right under the constitution. They also have the right to stand up and speak freely against an anti-Islamic movement which keeps spreading obvious falsehoods about Muslims and Islam.   

            The intentions behind the Ground Zero “Mosque” were misunderstood by many Americans. First, and most importantly, the Ground Zero “Mosque” is not really a mosque. It is a community center that has a space for Muslims to pray and worship God. So it should not be called a mosque because there are huge differences between a mosque and a community center.  Second, according to the managers of the project, the community center will be two blocks away from Ground Zero and the Ground Zero memorial will not be visible from the Park51 building. Although many people assume that the Islamic center is funded by terrorist organizations and countries unfriendly to the United States, the founders of the project state that “We will not accept assistance from any person or institution that is flagged by our security consultants or government agencies” (Park 51). This statement clarifies that the fundraising for the Islamic center will have no connection with any terrorist organizations or individuals who might be considered suspect. People should learn the truth rather than making prejudiced assumptions about the project.

            According to the First Amendment, Muslims have the right to build the center. However, bigots disagree. For instance, Marty Peretz, owner of the New Republic, denied Muslims’ First Amendment rights when he said, “frankly, Muslim life is cheap…. I wonder whether I need honor these people and pretend that they are worthy of the privileges of the First Amendment which I have in my gut the sense that they will abuse it” (Linkins). Peretz believes Muslims are unworthy of the rights that protect his own misguided statement. Peretz in his statement showed his ignorance when he failed to distinguish between “right” and “privilege.” The First Amendment guarantees rights, not privileges.

            Top leaders have different opinions regarding the opposed Islamic center close to Ground Zero. President Obama defended the when he said, “As a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practise (sic) their religion as everyone else in this country” (Batty). Obama followed the principles of the First Amendment rights by equating all citizens regardless of race or creed. A most repulsive statement, however, was voiced by Newt Gingrich, the Republican former speaker of the House of Representatives, when he said, “Nazis don’t have the right to put up a sign next to the Holocaust Museum in Washington. We would never accept the Japanese putting up a site next to Pearl Harbor” (Krakauer). Frankly, Gingrich equates the Nazis, who killed 6 million Jews, with Muslims who merely want to build a community center. Gingrich’s second analogy when he implies that building a community center is like involving us in a WWII. Only a minority of Germans wanted the destruction of the Jews, and only a minority of Japanese wanted to rule the world. Even so, only a minority of radical Muslims attacked us on 9/11. Therefore, Gingrich should stop generalizing about Muslims and make a public apology for his fanatical statement. The founders of the project should ignore such a blockhead and instead take his statement as a motive to forge ahead. 

            It seems obvious that Muslims should take a step forward and build the community center to protect their rights and send a message that Muslims are an integral part of American society, but other Americans should also stand and support the Park 51 project, regardless of their faiths and backgrounds because this is a constitutional issue. As George Wright, an Army spokesman at the Pentagon, said, "We are sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution. And freedom of religion is part of that Constitution” (Dvorak). Relocating the project will endanger everyone’s rights. Therefore, people should back the Park 51 project or junk the constitution.        

 *you may ask for a work cited page