Islamophobia threatens religious freedom in America
By Charles C. Haynes | Religious Freedom Education Project at the Newseum
Charles C. Haynes  | Since 9/11, demonization of Islam has become a cottage industry in America, aided and abetted by some evangelical leaders and a growing number of politicians. Much like the anti-Catholic hysteria of the 19th century, the current outbreak of Islamophobia is based on the paranoid fantasy that Islam in America is a threat to democracy and freedom.
The real threat, however, is to the religious freedom of Muslims in America - their freedom to practice their faith openly and freely without intimidation or fear.
While media attention is focused on the planned Islamic center in Manhattan, other more ominous anti-mosque protests are taking place throughout the country. From Temecula, Calif., to Murfreesboro, Tenn., to Bridgeport, Conn., angry Americans are rallying this summer to deny Muslims the right to build and maintain houses of worship.
Nationally, people like Pamela Geller, leader of "Stop the Islamization of America," pop up regularly on Fox News and elsewhere as authoritative commentators on the ground zero mosque debate. A popular speaker at tea party conventions and other venues, Geller calls Islam "the religion of barbarism" that "inspired Hitler and the Nazis."
Geller and her ilk, however, aren't remotely interested in having a civil discussion about appropriate development near the 9/11 site. Instead, they are taking advantage of the "ground zero mosque" conflict - as well as irrational fear of mosques in other communities - to advance their campaign to turn the "war on terrorism" into a "war on Islam."
It's time for people of conscience to look beyond what's happening in Manhattan and pay closer attention to the growing anti-mosque movement around the nation. Although extreme voices now dominate the debate in many local communities, I am hopeful that most Americans will have the courage to stand up for their Muslim neighbors and fellow citizens by speaking out for religious freedom.
Read full article |
The World is Watching
By Gerald E. Lavey | Matters of Church and State
Gerald E. Lavey  | America's reputation for religious tolerance and decency has taken a
terrible hit with this brouhaha over the proposed mosque near Ground
Zero. It is a self-inflicted wound, aided in no small part by the Tea
Party and the fear-mongers at Fox News who never miss an opportunity to
summon the darker aspects of our nature for political purposes. All
this in the name of a higher patriotism, of course.
When President Obama joined the fray and upheld the constitutional
right of the Muslim center's developers, the far Right saw this as
further proof that the President is Muslim, not Christian as he claims.
Here at home, mosques around the country are receiving threats as a
result of this shameless appeal to the fears and latent bigotry of many
Americans. In fact, if you scratch below the surface of the Tea Party,
there lies a strong strain of religious bigotry and racism, and it
shows up time and time again, including most notably in the debate over
immigration.
It would be one thing for us to air our dirty political laundry in
public, if only we Americans were observing the squabble. But, we're
not. The whole world is watching and the Islamic terrorists must be
delighted with the recruiting tool we just handed them on a platter. It
only just goes to show, the jihadists will maintain, that the "war on
terrorism" is bogus. It's really a war again Muslims, they will claim
in their continuing false narrative, and all Muslims must join the
battle.
Unless, of course, we do something about it and other Tea Party
pandering by getting politically involved. We need to recall - and act
- on the words of Edmund Burke that inspired the original Tea Party
revolutionaries: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for
good men to do nothing."
Read Full Article |
No compromise on religious freedom
By Richard Cohen | The Washington Post
Richard Cohen  | This is not a complicated matter. If you believe that an entire religion of upward of a billion followers attacked the United States on Sept. 11, 2001, then it is understandable that locating a mosque near the fallen World Trade Center might be upsetting. But the facts are otherwise. Islam was not in on the attack -- just a sliver of believers. That being the case, those people with legitimate hurt feelings are mistaken. They need our understanding, not our indulgence.
If, on the other hand, you do not believe that the attack was launched by an entire religion, you have a moral duty to support the creation of the Islamic center.
Those of us who are of a certain age remember the days when African Americans and their champions were being cautioned to go slow, compromise. They were being told to consider the tender feelings of whites, no matter how ugly their racism, and protect their dewy Scarlett O'Hara way of life. Leading politicians espoused this course, President Eisenhower among them. Wrong was somehow to become a little less so, but right would be painfully postponed. What was compromise? The middle of the bus?
I am a Jew, but do not judge me by Baruch Goldstein, who in 1994 murdered 29 Muslims in Hebron. Now something similar is happening. It's not merely that unscrupulous politicians are demagoguing the mosque issue, it is also that most others have kept their mouths shut. The Post editorial board suggested that Bush, who has always shown great leadership on interfaith issues, speak out. Hughes, who argued the case for the mosque and then advocated building it elsewhere, should have followed her own logic. And the archbishop, instead of urging compromise, should have urged his congregants to show tolerance. He's not a labor mediator. He's a moral leader.
Appearing on ABC's "This Week with Christiane Amanpour," Daisy Khan, a founder of the mosque (and the wife of the imam), rejected any compromise. She was right to do so because to compromise is to accede, even a bit, to the arguments of bigots, demagogues or the merely uninformed. This is no longer her fight. The fight is now all of ours.
It has become something of a cliche, I know, but no one ever put this sort of thing better than William Butler Yeats in his poem "The Second Coming." "The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity."
Some passionate intensity from the best is past due.
Read Full Article Back to top |
Christians must reject "Burn a Qur'an Day"
By Jennifer S. Bryson | Witherspoon Institute, Princeton, NJ
Jennifer S. Bryson  | "Burn a Quran Day" is how a church in Florida is preparing to mark the ninth anniversary of 9/11. So far the Christian response to this in America has been nearly dead silence.
The National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) has issued a press release opposing Burn a Quran Day. This is good, but it is basically just a statement to assure non-Evangelical Christians that Terry Jones does not represent authentic Evangelical Christianity.
Since 9/11 many American Christians have been asking why Muslims who oppose Islamist radicalism don't do more to counter it. Today I suspect more than a few Muslims are looking at Christians in America wondering why Christians don't try to dissuade the Dove World Outreach Center in Florida, led by Pastor Terry Jones, from hosting Burn a Quran Day.
What is the responsibility of religious believers in a given faith to engage fanatics advocating ideologies of hate while claiming to act in the name of this faith?
Quran burning does not equate with murdering thousands in terrorism. However, these are similar in being ideological expressions of hatred which identify themselves with Abrahamic faiths better known for their emphasis on God's mercy toward all humans.
There is a mess brewing inside Christendom. Some American Christians might be thinking, "Terry Jones and his church - ahem, his "church" - have nothing to do with me because I am Catholic/Methodist/fill-in-the-blank." And yet the only thing a flood victim in Pakistan, likely Muslim, is probably going to hear about this story is, 'American Christians put their energy and resources into Qur'an burning, not into helping us in our hour of dire need.'
Read full article |
A Conversation with Akbar Ahmed:
Journey into America: The Challenge of Islam
September 9, 2010 | 06:00PM
Bunn Intercultural Center (ICC) Auditorium
Georgetown University
»rsvp required
Akbar Ahmed  | The most comprehensive study ever done on the American Muslim community, Journey into America explores and documents how Muslims are fitting into U.S. society, seeking to place the Muslim experience in the U.S. within the larger context of American identity. Scholar Akbar Ahmed and his team of young researchers traveled through over seventy-five cities across the United States and visited over one hundred mosques. Ahmed illuminates unexplored Muslim-American communities through his pursuit of challenging questions: Can we expect an increase in homegrown terrorism? How do American Muslims of Arab descent differ from those of other origins (e.g. Somali or South Asian)? Why are so many white women converting to Islam? Much like Ahmed's widely hailed Journey into Islam: The Crisis of Globalization (Brookings, 2007), Journey into America is equal parts anthropological research, listening tour, and travelogue. Whereas the previous book took the reader into homes, schools, mosques, and public places in heavily Muslim nations, Journey into America takes us into the heart of America's Muslim communities in America. It is essential reading for anyone trying to make sense of America today, especially its Muslim population-the challenges it faces, the challenges it poses, and its prospects for the future.
|
Islam is a religion, not a terror ideology
By Jocelyne Cesari | Special to CNN
Jocelyne Cesari  | Opposition to Islamic centers and mosques in the United States shows remarkable similarities to anti-Islamic movements in Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands, where people also have sought to prohibit new mosques. Last December in Switzerland, citizens voted in a referendum to prohibit new minarets.
Another trait shared by anti-Islamic movements on both sides of the Atlantic is that they increasingly justify their opposition by arguing that Islam is not a religion.
American and European debate on Islam often revolves around the question of whether Islam is compatible with Western-style democracy and values. But because many Westerners associate Islam with al Qaeda, Palestinian militant groups and Iranian theocracy, they have a constricted, one-dimensional view of a faith that is multifaceted and complex.
It's worth noting that we did not seek to explain the violence and terrorism of Northern Ireland through the lens of Catholicism and Protestantism only; nobody scoured the Bible for verses about violence and war. Observers, instead, cited political, economic and historic factors to explain the conflict. By the same token, no one would argue that Gush Emunim, or Block of the Faithful, exclusively represents Judaism, or that the murder of abortion doctors represents the essence of Christianity.
We seem to need to exist in opposition to an Other, and in today's national folklore, Islam plays that role. Not surprisingly, contemporary political Muslim groups across the globe play the same game, manufacturing their legitimacy as a product of opposition to their own Other, the West.
It is the strength of democracy in the U.S. that such debates can exist, so demonization of the Other won't ride roughshod over reason. Prohibiting mosques doesn't advance these society-saving debates, and can't reshape our imaginations so that we can one day imagine Islam and Muslims as fellow citizens.
Read Full Article
|
Review
of Policy Paper "Beyond Orthodox Approaches: Assessing Opportunities for
Democracy Support in the Middle East and North Africa"
The Uncertain Future of Democracy Promotion
By Steven Heydemann | US Institute of Peace
Steven Heydemann  | Democracy promotion has had a tough decade, nowhere more so than in the Middle East. Ten years ago, the democratic optimism that followed the end of the Cold War was in relatively good health. Today, after a decade of authoritarian reversals, a sustained "backlash against democracy promotion," and authoritarian resurgence from Russia to Latin America, post-Cold War optimism has given way to a darker, more sober assessment of democratization's limits. The Middle East in particular, with not a single experience of transition from Morocco to Iran, has been the crucible of hard-won lessons about the durability of authoritarian regimes and their resilience even in the face of quite extraordinary pressures.
If BOA's recommendations were adopted, the practice of democracy promotion would look very different than it does today. While retaining much of current practice, it would be focused far more directly on questions of political power than technical matters, be more closely engaged with grassroots political mobilization and less with elites, and would direct significant resources toward moderate Islamist political actors rather than focusing exclusively on their secular, and less popular counterparts. Moreover, reform programs would be shaped by a clear sense of direction, informed by well articulated understandings of where reform is leading. They would benefit from the use of conditionalities that bring the weight of Western governments to bear on behalf of political reform. Inversely, democracy promoters would no longer rely so heavily on proxy strategies that peck around the edges of democratization. They would acknowledge, for example, that however desirable they might be in their own right, programs that support capacity building in civil society are not necessarily commensurate with programs that support opposition to autocratic rule. These are not trivial changes. In presenting them, BOA poses a serious challenge to practitioners: reform yourselves or continue to fail.
What is needed, instead, is a project to reclaim democracy as a political good, and to do so in terms that will make it both tangible and meaningful for citizens of the Middle East. To achieve this end means denying regimes the space to appropriate democratic rhetoric for authoritarian purposes, while fostering space for alternative political futures to emerge not from regimes but from society, with all of the risks that this involves. It requires holding regimes fully accountable, in tangible ways, for their failure to adopt democratic reforms. It means containing and constraining the exercise of authoritarian power wherever possible- including, most immediately, in the form of emergency laws that represent a singularly egregious denial of democratic rights to citizens.
These aims would be difficult to achieve under the best of circumstances. These are not the best of circumstances. As the first decade of the 21st century comes to a close, democracy is not faring well, either in Europe or in the U.S. The troubling state of democratic politics in the West, as Larry Diamond's most recent book points out, "tarnishes experiences that might otherwise serve as models for the Middle East". For Arabs and Muslims in particular, growing intolerance toward Islam in Europe and the U.S. reinforces popular alienation from Western-style democracy.
Read Full Paper
|
A new Brookings Doha Center policy brief on:
The Islamist Response to Repression:
Are Mainstream Islamist Groups Radicalizing?
By Shadi Hamid | Brookings Doha Center
This policy briefing analyzes how nonviolent Islamist groups in the
Arab world are responding to a new, sometimes unprecedented, set of
challenges. How have these emerging concerns affected their strategy
and tactics? And, as mainstream Islamists are boxed in by government
restrictions, will other more radical groups try to fill the vacuum?
The course that political Islam takes in the coming years will have
far-reaching implications for U.S. policy and regional security, yet it
remains unclear whether the Obama administration is willing, or able,
to influence events as they unfold.
Shadi Hamid  | The briefing focuses on the critical cases of Egypt and Jordan, among
America's closest Arab allies as well as two of the world's largest
recipients of U.S. aid. With much-anticipated elections in both
countries scheduled for 2010 and 2011, the Obama administration as well
as the U.S. Congress have the opportunity to weigh in and address the
question of Islamist participation, something they have so far avoided
doing. The briefing concludes with several practicable steps the United
States should take, including:
Publicly affirm the right of all opposition actors, including Islamists, to participate in upcoming elections.
The Obama administration should begin by clarifying U.S. policy toward
political Islam by clearly affirming the right of all nonviolent
political groups to participate in the electoral process. This should
be coupled by a consistent American policy of opposing not just the
arrests of secular activists but Islamist ones as well. By treating
both groups equally, the United States can counter the (largely
accurate) claim that its support for Arab democrats is selective.
Empower U.S. embassies to begin substantive engagement with Islamist groups.
The Obama administration has emphasized its belief in engaging a
diverse range of actors. Yet it has failed to reach out to many of the
largest, most influential groups in the region. As Islamist groups work
to reassess their strategy and resolve internal divisions, American
officials need to be aware of how such developments might affect
broader regional interests. At a later stage, open channels of dialogue
may allow the United States some influence over strategies Islamists
adopt, particularly regarding participation in elections.
This briefing also considers the strategic priorities of Arab
governments, which, understandably, fear losing power during a
difficult time of regional change. However, the Egyptian and Jordanian
regimes would be well served to allow-and even encourage-Islamist
participation in the upcoming elections. Doing so would enhance their
domestic and international legitimacy and would be unlikely to threaten
their domination of the political arena.
Read the paper in English or in Arabic here.
|
How Arab Governments Resist the Trend to Democracy
The West needs to act in defense of democracy in the Arab world
By Amr Hamzawy | US News and World Report
Amr Hamzawy  | Throughout most of the Arab world, poverty, unemployment, and illiteracy rates are on the rise while the quality of education, healthcare, and social safety-nets for the poor and elderly are falling to unprecedented levels. Despite these failures, the repressive governments under which they occur remain firmly entrenched. And this lack of democracy limits the West's ability to realize its goals in the region.
While authoritarian governments facing similar circumstances have toppled elsewhere-as we saw in Ghana and Indonesia-the Arab world is different. Some observers suggest its cultural and religious values are responsible. But this is simply not the case. In fact, several unique features hinder reform and block the democratic progress that the United States and Europe desires.
First, Arab governments have poured even more money into security in recent years. This spending not only includes monitoring and punishing the opposition using traditional methods, but also exerting pressure on civil organizations and the media and even changing the composition of electoral districts. All of these efforts make it harder for citizens to organize and confront the hugely powerful regimes.
But should signs of protest arise, the regimes have no qualms using violence to squelch them. While a number of nonstate actors carry out threats of violence in Iraq, Lebanon, and Palestine, the power of repression resides exclusively with the authoritarian governments in most other Arab countries. The use of violence ranges from intimidation to torture to, ultimately, murder.
The West needs to act in defense of democracy in the Arab world. It's critical for its interests in the Middle East peace process, Iraq, Egypt, and Yemen as democracy is the only sustained path for development, moderation, and peace. The United States and its European allies should make democracy and human rights integral parts of bilateral diplomacy, condition aid packages and trade relations on improvements in these policies, publicly condemn abuses, and closely monitor elections.
|
Why Islamic History Offers New Reasons to Support Democracy in Egypt, the Middle East
Islamic democracy is a contradiction in terms -- at least that is the implicit message coming from the Obama administration.
By Heather Ferguson and Ty McCormick | The Huffington Post
 In Egypt, where an opposition movement led by Mohamed ElBaradei -- a Nobel laureate and the former head of the International Atomic Agency -- has presented the U.S. with the perfect opportunity to press for political reform, President Obama has so far respectfully declined. Rather than act on the "commitment" professed in his Cairo speech "to governments that reflect the will of the people," Obama has elected to say nothing and quietly redirect democracy promotion funds toward strictly economic projects.
Sadly, this policy reflects a sincere belief on the part of the Obama administration that Islamists cannot be democrats. If free and fair elections are held -- so the thinking goes -- potentially anti-western Islamist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood might come into power, and once there, decide to do away with voting once and for all. As Obama put it in the aforementioned speech, "[T]here are some who advocate for democracy only when they are out of power; once in power, they are ruthless in suppressing the rights of others."
This type of pathological thinking endures, in our estimation, because of two common analytical pitfalls: the tendency to treat terms like "Islamist," "Islamic democracy," and "democracy" as monoliths, and the even more troubling impulse to view Islam itself as a rigid and authoritarian faith.
In truth, Islamists -- democratic and otherwise -- are a diverse bunch. They differ on whether or not democratic principles are inherent within Islam, on whether Islam should extend beyond the private sphere, and on an encyclopedic list of other practical details.
More than just potentially compatible, we believe that Islam's historical record provides plenty of reasons to think that a viable exchange between Islamic and democratic principles will take place in the future. Indeed, Islam has proved so flexible and so receptive to new ideas in its 1400 years of existence that the marriage of Islam and democracy would actually be something rather ordinary.
As the empire expanded and evolved at an unprecedented rate, it lost none of its early flexibility. By the 10th and 11th centuries, Islamic centers of learning from Baghdad to Marrakesh to Seville were translating and expanding upon Greek philosophical treatises, fueling debates about the role of reason in faith, philosophy in religion. At the same time, the infusion of Hellenistic thought into Islamic society coincided with and complimented a quickening of efforts in the scientific and mathematical realms that would later enable the global shifts inspired by the Italian Renaissance. Islam, therefore, did not remain impervious to outside influence. Rather, it received and integrated new ideas into the complex socio-political fabric it came to define.
Constitutionalism, classical Greek philosophy, and elements of American pop culture, therefore, have all found their way into Islam's rich tradition of intellectual synthesis. So why, then, should we be skeptical about its interaction with yet another global dynamic: democracy as a form of government?
Rather than manipulating political change in places like Egypt and alienating proponents of democracy for fear of encouraging Islamism, we think the U.S. should seize the opportunity presented by ElBaradei, attempt to engage positively with his diverse group of followers, and trust in the rich history of flexibility within Islam. The current policy not only undermines our credibility in the region, but risks infecting Islamic democrats with the same pessimistic attitude that has clouded U.S. foreign policy of late.
Read Full Article
|
ALLIANCE OF EGYPTIAN AMERICANS
FIFTH ANNUAL CONFERENCE
The Horizon for Peaceful Transition toward Democracy in Egypt
The Forthcoming Presidential Election - Challenges and Opportunities
The Alliance of Egyptian Americans "AEA" is a US based non-profit, non- governmental organization dedicated to empowering Egyptian Americans to promote true democracy, sustainable development, and social justice in Egypt. AEA is holding its annual conference Friday-Sunday, Sept 17-19, 2010 at the National 4-H Youth Conference Center in the Nation's Capitol.
The conference will focus on ways to open up the clogged political process and secure "free and fair" Presidential elections in Egypt. Participants will examine and identify ways to empower Egyptians to: change Article 76 of the Egyptian Constitution; restore Egyptian voter confidence in the forth-coming Egyptian Presidential election; examine the possibility of forming an independent election commission whereby all political parties are represented on equal footing in that Commission; and to insure "free and fair" election process. The conference proceedings will be conducted mostly in interactive formats (town hall meetings, round tables and workshops).
.
Several noted Egyptian public figures have confirmed their participation in the AEA Conference, including: Dr. Sayed El Badawi, the Head of the Wafd Party with a delegation of Wafd members; Dr. Ayman Nour, former Presidential candidate; Dr. Usama El-Ghazali Harb, the Head of the Democratic Front Party; Mohammad Anwar Sadat, the Head of the Development and Reform Party (under construction); George Ishaaq; Samir Eleish, the Head of "My Vote is My Demand Organization"; Mohammad Nousair, Egyptian-American Friendship Association; Margaret Azir, Vice President of the Democratic Front Party; Sarah Mohammad Kamal and Mostafa El-Naggar, Youth of the Egyptian Change Movement; Ibrahim Issa, Chief Editor of AlDastour; Khaled Yousif, renown movie director; and others.
Dr. Mohamed El Baradie will address the Conference participants via video, as his schedule does not permit personal attendance.
For program updates & further information, please contact: Mr. Mahmoud ElShazly, President, AEA, maelshazly51@hotmail.com, Phone: (203) 329-2225
For media-related information, please contact:
English Media: Mokhtar Kamel mokhtarkamel@hotmail.com (703)-501-1398
Arabic Media: Sabry Elbaga, s.albaga@yahoo.com (323) 345-1586
Friday-Sunday, Sept 17-19, 2010
National 4-H Youth Conference Center,
7100 Connecticut Ave.,
Chevy Chase, Maryland 20816
For more details, please visit The Alliance of Egyptian Americans official website
|
 Nominate an individual of distinction for:
The Templeton Prize
Valued at 1 million British pounds, the Templeton Prize was first originated in 1973 by Sir John Templeton. From the beginning, Sir John felt that Alfred Nobel overlooked one of the most important dimensions of humankind; namely, religion and the pursuit of spiritual growth and progress.
The Templeton Prize parallels growing attention to the idea that progress in spiritual information is just as feasible as progress in the sciences. Past Prize winners have been scientists, philosophers, theologians, members of the clergy, philanthropists, writers and reformers from a wide range of religious traditions. Each has, in some way, contributed to an expanded spiritual awareness on the part of humankind and a wider understanding of the purpose of life.
The website defines the Purpose and Criteria for winning the Prize. It will also show you the exemplary and diverse winners since the inception of the prize. More detail on the Prize, and its winners and judges is available on the website www.templetonprize.org.
The deadline for nominating an individual for the 2011 Prize is October 1, 2010.
Nominations are being accepted at the Templeton Prize website: www.templetonprize.org. There is no limit to the number of nominations you submit. You can be a co-nominator. And you can also encourage your institution to nominate a faculty member, alumnus or anyone else who is important to the institution that meets the Prize criteria.
If you have any questions, please address them to info@templetonprize.org
|
Beautiful photos of Ramadan in the Islamic World
|
About CSID
By supporting CSID, you help to: - Create a better future for our children so they can have more opportunities for improving their lives and realizing their dreams.
- Educate and inform Americans about Islam's true values of tolerance, peace, and good will towards mankind, including peoples of other faiths.
- Improve U.S. relations with the Muslim world by supporting popular movements rather than oppressive tyrannies and corrupt regimes.
- Replace the feelings of hopelessness, despair, and anger in many parts of the Muslim world, especially among the youth, with a more positive and hopeful outlook for the future.
- Encourage young Muslim Americans, and Muslims everywhere, to participate in the political process and to reject calls for destructive violence and extremism.
- Build a network of Muslim democrats around the globe who can share knowledge and experience about how to build and strengthen democratic institutions and traditions in the Muslim countries.
Center for the Study of Islam & Democracy Membership/Donation Form 2010
Name: ______________________________________________________________________________
Institution:___________________________________________________________________________
Address: ____________________________________________________________________________
City____________________________State______________Zip _______________________________
Tel.:________________________________________________________________________________
Fax.:_______________________________________________________________________________
E-mail:______________________________________________________________________________
I would like to join CSID as:
Student Member ❑ $20 Newsletter Subscription ❑ $20 Institutional Member ❑ $200 CSID 500 Club ❑ $500 Associate Member ❑ $50 Founding Member ❑ $1000 Member ❑ $100 Lifetime Member ❑ $2500
National Advisory Board ❑ $1,000 International Advisory Board ❑ $5,000
I would like to make a tax-deductible donation for: $__________
I would like to make a pledge to CSID for: ❑ $1000 ❑ $500 ❑ $200 ❑ $100 ❑ $50 Other________
Please mail, along with payment, to:
CSID
1625 Massachusetts Ave., NW, Suite 601,
Washington, D.C. 20036
Please donate generously. Your contribution to CSID is both tax-deductible, and zakat-eligible. Your contribution will make a world of difference.
The Center for the Study of Islam & Democracy is a non-profit think tank, based in Washington DC - dedicated to promoting a better understanding of democracy in the Muslim world, and a better understanding of Islam in America. To achieve its objectives, the Center organizes meetings, conferences, and publishes several reports and periodicals. CSID engages Muslim groups, parties, and governments - both secularist and moderate Islamist - in public debates on how to reconcile Muslims' interpretation of Islam and democracy. CSID is committed to providing democracy education to ordinary citizens, civil society, religious and political leaders in the Muslim world, and has organized meetings, workshops, and conferences in over 25 countries, including Nigeria, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Iran, Algeria, Morocco, Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, etc.
"Today, more than ever, we in the United States of America and
beyond need to hear, understand, and promote the voices of reason,
moderation, and democracy among Muslims. The CSID is one of the most
articulate platforms serving this need. Through the CSID we can and
have been tackling the deficit of democracy, human rights, especially
women's rights in many Islamic societies. By supporting CSID we help
support dialogue and understanding, instead of clash, among
civilizations."
Nayereh Tohidi
Professor & Department Chair
Women's Studies, CSUN & UCLA
"There are few issues of greater concern to the future of the Muslim
world than the prospects for democracy. CSID has pioneered the
promotion of democracy at the practical level, and in this regard has
provided invaluable service through education and social activism."
Vali Nasr, Professor
Naval Postgraduate School
|
|
