Thursday, August 31st 2006
Civil liberties, not understanding
William Fischer has an article on OpEdNews about Muslim-Americans taking a greater interest in legal careers after 9/11:
His name is Junaid Ahmad. He is 24 years old. And he is among a rapidly increasing number of first generation Muslim-Americans who have decided to pursue careers in the law…
Ahmad says he is “worried about the politics of fear” that the Administration of President George W. Bush has encouraged since the terrorists attacks of September 11th 2001. He adds that “Many Muslims in America are being routinely harassed and stereotyped and “might feel more comfortable with lawyers who understood their language, culture and customs.”
Perfectly understandable. What I’m concerned about is this quote from Ms. Rufiath Yousuff of the National Association of Muslim Lawyers:
“After 9/11 there came a shocking realization that there were not enough Muslims in the profession to protect the rights of Muslims both within the U.S. and also the international community. And, that those who did not profess the Muslim faith may not understand the subtle dimensions and intentions of those who practiced their faith or culture in a manner that peripherally seemed un-American, when in reality no treason was intended.”
I think that this is dangerous reasoning, the idea that only people who look or worship like you can defend your civil liberties. I think that this only leads to more division. What we really need is a greater appreciation for what civil liberties really mean. The liberties enshrined in the Bill of Rights should apply equally to all of us, and we all should be concerned during the times when this isn’t the case.
It really doesn’t matter if we understand the “subtle dimensions and intentions” of a certain group or not. If no one is being directly and provably harmed, then it ends there: the government shouldn’t tread on your liberties. Do you think that the ACLU defends KKK members and neo-Nazis because they understand these groups’ “subtle dimensions and intentions”? (Not to make any comparison whatsoever with Muslims, except in the “understanding” department). No, because that stuff is totally irrelevant.
Wanting to help people that are like you isn’t inherently good or bad. But wanting to help people that are totally different from you is a true American ideal. From time to time our nation faces difficult questions. These questions wouldn’t be nearly as hard if we always keep in mind the values that America should represent.
Not much to disagree with in this post, but I suppose it’s crises like these that will lead to smoother assimilation in the future. So, even if they are joining for the wrong reasons–at least as we perceive them–the long-term effects may be positive.
Comment by Yaman — 9/1/2006 @ 1:29 am
Firstly, a correction as to my affiliation, I am from the National Muslim Law Students Association (NMLSA).
Second a clarification.
I agree with your comments that one need not be of a particular faith or espouse the same ideology of the accused to represent them. The Muslim community has very much appreciated the efforts of groups such as ACLU who have backed Muslims and any other group in the cause of justice. However, sometimes these efforts are not as effective when certain aspects of a person’s faith may not be apparent to the advocate, especially when the defendant Muslim is also unable to articulate its significance in their daily lives.
One such situation was when the MTA had proposed having they logo printed on the headscarf of female Muslim employees. The argument which succeeded in ensuring that this logo would not appear on the front of the scarf was that, when prostrating in prayer, a Muslim must touch his/her head to the ground and connect with God. Thus, to have the MTA logo intervene with this connection is tantamount to submitting to another deity. It is instances such as these that I refer to; where a person of the Muslim faith can advocate appropriately and effectively because they have the dual characteristic of having a familiarity with these issues with the legal expertise to recognize the seriousness of the offence on civil liberties.
Nevertheless I am in complete agreement that to advocate for a person on the grounds of justice and not their personage is a noble end. In fact it is one not solely reserved to those who aim is to observe the true American ideal. This ideal has actually been stated in the Quran, over 1425 years ago: “O You who believe! Stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to Allah, even though it may be against yourselves, or your parents, or your kin; be he rich or poor, Allah is better protector of both (than you). So follow not the lusts (of your hearts), lest you may avoid justice, and if you distort your witness or refuse to do justice, verily, Allah is ever Well-Acquainted with what you do.” (Chapter 4 [An-Nisa’- The Women]: Verse 135). As such it is an ideal that should be adopted by every Muslim, especially the American Muslim lawyers who, although currently addressing challenges affecting the Muslim community, also have obligations towards all those whose liberties are infringed upon.
Comment by Rufiath Yousuff — 9/4/2006 @ 7:15 pm