Nasik Elahi shared this with you
Interesting analysis and one that deserves to be highlighted for the danger of religious and racial profiling.
|
Category Archives: Theology
THEORIES OF ORIGIN Of RELEGION
Theories
One would be hard pressed to find an intelligent and enlightened person in this day and age, who would be credulous enough to accept that God has arms, legs, eyes and ears or that on the day of judgment, He will arrive surrounded by angels, eight of whom would carry Him on a throne, and will offer His thigh for the satisfaction of Hell. A noted Indian author Allama Shibli Nomani so describes the scene in his book Al-Ghazali, the most influential Muslim philosopher (1). Besides, the Isna Ashri Twelvers- (2) and the Mutazzalin ( Rationalists ) and the jurist Ibne Tammayah (1263 to 1328 AD), forerunner of Abd al Wahab, also subscribed to the view. (3).
Theories of origin of religion defined as a set of inter-connected doctrines, myths, rituals, beliefs and institutions, are of necessity, speculative in nature. Historic records go back only several thousand years and sentient human beings have existed on earth for much longer. A unified theory is therefore not feasible.
It is reasonable to suppose that people were awed by, and could not comprehend or explain natural phenomena. They were afraid and apprehensive of what they would face after death and invented gods who would help them at the end of life, and rites to propitiate the different deities who, they came to believe, caused rain, flood, fire, lightning, earthquake, pestilence, disease, life and death. Spirit men, medicine men and magicians of all kinds sprang up to intercede for lesser mortals with the powers that be.
But religion was in its ‘scientific’ stage, in the sense that one observed, analyzed and came to a conclusion. It did, however, not meet the current scientific standards in that the conclusion was not replicable.
Nature was universal and affected
all races and regions in the same way..
People would occasionally fight for the pre-eminence of their own favorite god, but would soon come to a compromise, venerating deities of both camps.
When reason and logic failed, man fell back to speculation. There is an instructive story in the Koran. When Abraham was in the process of becoming a prophet, it was early night. “Ayah 77: The night grew dark and he beheld a star; ‘This is my Lord , but when it set, ‘I love not things that set. Ayah 78: and when he saw the moon uprising, he exclaimed; ‘This is my Lord, but when it set; ‘unless my Lord guide me I surely shall become one of the folks who are astray”. Ayah 79: when he saw the sun rising
he cried ‘this is my Lord…’ when it set he exclaimed ‘O’ my people I am free from all that ye associate (with them)… I have turned my face towards HIM who created the heaven and the earth… and I am not of the idolaters,” (4).
As long as he was observing and coming to a conclusion, Abraham was in the realm of science (theoretical), but when his logic failed to satisfy him, he entered the realm of religion.
It may be based on Numinous experience, pertaining to divinity, like the vision of Cross. Emperor Constantine, on the verge of defeat, saw the Cross over the horizon, and inspired he went on to victory and declared Christianity as the official religion of his empire. There are numerous such anecdotal narratives on record.
In most cases, if not in all religions, certain set of rituals of worship are followed.
The Dutch theologians called it Organic Totalitarianism.
Valid comparisons between religions are possible though all religions claim to be unique.. Marxism and Fascism also have some features analogous to religion.
Let us go over briefly, the various studies, their methods and history of religion.
According to the German philosopher Ludwig Feuerbach (1804-72), God is an extension of human aspirations, as “a moral being, law, as “love” and so on” (5).
Methods of Enquiry:
The literature on the subject is immense. Subjective, normative, descriptive and historic are among the many approaches. Going into details is beyond the scope of this study. Briefly though:
-Subjective: Is it possible to understand a faith without believing in it?
Criteria by which its truth is to be decided are obscure.
– Normative : Analysis of claims of truth and acceptability of values. -Descriptive: Epochal-suspension of belief and investigation of phenomenon after the German philosopher Edmund Husserl, (1859-1938) father of phenomenology, who offered the method of describing phenomena to bring out beliefs, without opinion on beliefs (6).
Religious-descriptive method studies aspects of man’s attitude to transcendent while remaining faithful to facts.
History of Study:
No single study encompassing Western, Mid-Eastern, Indian or Chinese creeds exists.
The primary impulse of objective, non-normative study happens to be Western (enlightenment period) and is based on genesis and functionality. 19th century AD was the formative period of such studies.(7).
The Greek-Roman period:
The Greek poet Hesiod (800 BC) painstakingly put together the genealogies of gods in his Theogony. Speculative philosophers Thales (600 BC) and Heraclitus (500 BC) held out the opinion that water and fire were the first substances. Aristotle (400 BC) believed that everything was filled with gods where as Anaximander (600 BC) averred that primary substance apeiron was infinite.
Heraclitus called the controlling substance logos (reason).
Xenophenes (600s-500s BC) deplored myths and introduced the concept of monotheism. Plato (400BC) developed on this work.
The athlete-author Theogenes (600 BC) classified gods as natural and psychological forces. Historian Herodotus (500 BC) attempted to rationalize plurality of deities by identifying foreign ones with Greek ones (Egyptian Amon with Greek Zeus). This syncretism was widely employed in the Roman Empire (Zeus and Jupiter).
Plurality of gods and cults led to skepticism. Plato in The Republic: Noble lies and myths were invented to make people upright. He rejected Homer’s account of gods and substituted it with the concept of Demiurge (Supreme craftsman-creator). Aristotle developed the idea of Supreme Intelligence-unmoved mover. In his opinion concept of gods came from observations of cosmic order and dreams.
Later on, stoics, philosophers of nature and morality adopted naturalistic monotheism. Epicurus (400s-300s BC) opted for gods who had no dealings with men.
Euhemerus gave his name to his concept that gods were divinized men. Early Christian writers such as Lactantius used his beliefs that ancient gods were originally human to confirm their inferiority to the Christian God.
Greek thinking influenced Romans. Lucretius owed his atheism to Epicurus, whose trilemma argument –God is omnipotent, God is good, but Evil Exists. Cicero attacked the latter In particular, heated scholarly debate has focussed on how the Epicurean gods may be said to “exist;”. David Sedley, for example, holds that Epicureans, as represented in this text and elsewhere, think that “gods are our own graphic idealization of the life to which we aspire. Whereas David Konstan maintains that The Epicurean gods are real, in the sense that they exist as atomic compounds and possess the properties that pertain to the concept, or prolēpsis, that people have of them. (8).
In early Roman Empire, Anatolian Cybele, Persian Mithra, neo-Platonism and stoicism were all followed.
Christianity was introduced into this amalgam and adopted many of its practices. Euhamerism was especially popular. Non-Christians used allegorical methods to justify cults and syncretized philosophy and popular religion (9).
Theories of religion had, heretofore, been rationalistic and naturalistic. With the spread of Christianity, a synthesis of the unknown and existing thought was necessitated. The Icelandic historian Snorri Sturluson (1200s-1300 AD) added Euhemeristic elements to his native folklore (10).
Islam gifted combined values of revelation and reason to Christianity. Muslims had deeper and clearer idea of religion than Europeans did. (11).
Marco Polo of Italy (613-14 AD) and Odoric of Portugal brought knowledge of Asian creeds to Europe. In an early attempt to establish theology, Roger Bacon (1220-1292 AD) tried to relate natural religion to the First cause. (12).
Christianity adopted Pagan customs to combat paganism, to delineate common points and that man had innate capacity to recognize God with reason. It conceded that there could be truth in other religions
Renaissance reinvigorated European culture by rediscovery of Greek-Roman culture and caused tension in Christian ranks about Paganism. Giovanni Boccacio (1313-1375 AD) (13) made an attempt at resolution by allegorization. Erasmus offered that ancient thinkers had a direct knowledge of the highest truth (14). They preferred ancient Rome. Protestants attacked Roman Catholics as Pagans.
Renaissance also promoted study of Indian, Chinese and Native American religions.
Modern Period: Late 17th and 18th AD.
Italian Giambattista Vico (1668-1744) offered the opinion that Greek religion passed through divinization of nature-fire, crops etc, and then institutionalized marriage and harmonization of gods as in Homer (15).
David Hume (1711-76) in his Natural history of Religion opines that polytheism was anthropomorphism and assigned causes to natural phenomena. (16).
Rationalism rejected Paganism and Christianity for Deism. Pietists offered “heart” religion over “head” religion. Voltaire (1694-1778) and Diderot (1713-1784) advocated anti-clerical Deism and thought that priests had invented polytheism (17). Voltaire was influenced by Confucius (6 BC).
Immanuel Kant (1774-1804) based religion on ethical rationalism (18). Jesus enshrined the moral ideal. Frenchman Charles de Brosses (1709-1777) attributed Greek polytheism to Fetishism-magical powers of certain objects-of West Africa (19). Abbe Berger (1718-1790) felt that primitive religious belief in spirits was due to psychological causes (20). That led to animism-belief in souls in persons and objects. German Johann Gottfried Von Herder (1744-1803) saw mythology as an evolutionary explanation of human language and thought (21).
G.W.F Hegel and his followers were, in a large measure, founders of modern scientific history, dialecticism; thesis, anti-thesis to synthesis, which is a new thesis to engender its own anti-thesis and so on. Hegel implied that each phase of religion had limited truth, which led to the general theory of religion (22). He stressed the formative power of the spiritual over human history. The positivist Auguste Comte (1798-1857) offered phases of Human history as theological, supernatural, metaphysical-abstract explanatory-and empirical (23). Herbert Spencer (1820-1903) referring to the unknown, offered that religion had a place besides science (24). Ludwig Feuerbach (1804-1872) in his Lectures on Essence of Religion, described religion as a projection of human aspirations (25). Marx, Freud and Barth took up this theme (26)
History and Phenomenology:
Rudolf Otto: “The Idea of the Holy”. The idea of God is sui generis (unique, one of its kind phenomenon) and is non-rational (27). Only Jainism and Buddhism have numinous values.
Joachim Wach of ‘the Chicago School’ emphasized theoretical, practical and institutional aspects of religion (28). Mircea Eliade studied Yoga and Shamanism and synthesized data from several cultures – theories of myths and cultures and influenced by Jung’s interpretation of mythic experience distinguished between the sacred and the profane (29).
Enuma Elish, Babylonian creation epic, not just stories but mythic drama was enacted every year at spring to ritually renew foundation of the World. (30)
Raffaele Pettazzoni “God: Formation and development of monotheism in the History of Religion” emphasized importance of divinized Sky in the development of monotheism. (31)
All people are and have always been, in some sense, religious. Religion includes mythologies of pre-historic people, abstruse speculation of the most “Advanced” religion and religions embracing primitive practice and sophisticated worship of high-tech literate societies
.
Historical Studies:
Expansion of European empires and discovery of sacred texts-sacred books of the East edited by Max Muller (1823-1900) and earlier translations of the Vedas had notable effect on historical study (32). Muller found that scripture played a different role in different societies.
Buddhism was studied later. Zoroastrian texts (6th century BC) were studied from 1850 AD on (33)
Epic of Gilgamesh, a Mesopotamian religious tract as well as the Egyptian Book of the Dead were discovered in the digs in ancient Sumeria. (34)These studies threw light on Judaism and Islam. Data on pre-Christian Greek, Roman, German and Celtic religions was collected and Old and the New Testament were subjected to analytical study (Higher Criticism).(35)
Archeologists worked in Troy, Crete, Egypt, Elan and Anatolia. Work at Ras Shamra led to the discovery of Masada, the last Jewish stand against Romans in 66-73 AD. (36)
Study of Indus valley pushed Indian history to 3500 BC and called into question primacy of Aryan/Vedic culture. (37).
Anthropology
John Lubbock (1834-1913)
|
Countdown to Kristallnacht
Shared by Azeem Farooki
Countdown to Kristallnacht
by Akbar Ahmed
It was a cold night in November 1938. Hard men with hatred in their hearts and bats in their hands set about smashing shops belonging to Jews. At the end of the night, some 267 synagogues were destroyed, the windows of 7,500 Jewish-owned businesses were shattered and several Jewish cemeteries were desecrated. At least 91 Jews were killed in the mayhem. Up to 30,000 Jewish men were rounded up and sent to concentration camps. Glass from smashed storefront windows lay strewn across the streets. That night of infamy is notorious in history as Kristallnacht—the “Night of Broken Glass.”
Kristallnacht was a turning point on the path to the concentration camps and the Holocaust, at the end of which 6 million Jews would be killed, creating what has been acknowledged as one of the most murderous episodes in history.
Today, we appear to be heading that way again—this time with Muslims instead of Jews.
Kristallnacht was justified by the Nazis as a response to the assassination of a German diplomat in Paris by a young Jewish man. Similarly, much of the current level of Islamophobia appears justified to many Americans because of the terrible and tragic killings by Muslims in San Bernardino and Paris. The San Bernardino killings were particularly horrific because they were likely committed by an American-born citizen and his wife. It was a double betrayal—of their own Islamic faith, a religion of peace, and of their host country, which had accepted them and given them the American dream.
The classic pattern from the fascist playbook has been: first abuse and demonize the minority community, then isolate it, then suggest violence and finally encourage and indulge in violence. We may not have, thankfully, reached the last stage, but we certainly are into the second and perhaps moving to the third stage. Here’s why.
Donald Trump, the leading presidential candidate for the Republican Party, has been focused on projecting Muslims in an extremely negative manner, with each of his statements more extreme than the last. When a man at one of Trump’s speeches said, “We have a problem in this country. It’s called Muslims … When can we get rid of them?” Trump merely replied, “We’re going to be looking at that and many other things.” Last month, Trump said he was open to keeping a database of American Muslims or making them carry special ID cards that listed their religion. He talked of shutting down American mosques because “bad things are happening.” He vowed, “We’re going to have to do things we never did before,” things “that we never thought would happen in this country in terms of information and learning about the enemy.” A few days ago, he suddenly said that he would ban all Muslims from entering the United States—a statement that caused a furor both in the United States and abroad, with even the British prime minister, who would normally not comment on an American election, objecting to Trump.
Trump was exemplifying and enhancing the already existing Islamophobia in the U.S., which had been fed by well-known Islamophobic figures like Frank Gaffney. Yet Trump used Gaffney’s dubious research to justify his policy of banning all Muslims from the U.S. The poll Trump cited was published by the Center for Security Policy, the think tank created by Gaffney, who is described by the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks U.S. hate groups, as “one of America’s most notorious Islamophobes.” The SPLC notes that Center for Security Policy reports serve “to reinforce Gaffney’s delusions” about a Muslim takeover of the United States.
The results of widespread American Islamophobia are tragic and apparent in the daily news. The list is long and I will only present some random examples from the past few weeks: Muslims have been physically attacked and abused with frightening frequency, even in schools and universities. A Moroccan taxi driver was asked by his passenger if he was a “Pakistani guy” and then shot. Mosques have been attacked and fired on, as have Muslim homes. Mosques and families have received phone calls promising that Muslims, including children and old people, “will be killed.” Armed “militias” with masks on their faces have turned up outside an Islamic center. Heads of pigs have been thrown into mosques in defiance of the Muslim ritual prohibition of the animal. A disturbing amount of women and children live in abject fear and are reluctant to leave their homes. Recently, a man walked into a New York store and ferociously beat the Muslim owner, who had to be hospitalized, shouting, “I want to kill Muslims.”
To all this backlash the director of the Florida chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations commented, “The community is turning to us for protection, for safety, for guidance. We haven’t been sleeping.” He went on to draw a direct comparison between Trump and Hitler, adding, “I don’t say this lightly.”
The Obama administration appears ineffective in checking the Islamophobia and the opposition, which is now embodied by Trump, is fueling the fire. Trump has now raised the stakes so dramatically that all it needs is a match thrown into the powder keg to blow it sky high.
While I am not suggesting that Trump is another Hitler or even has Hitlerian sensibilities, there are some interesting similarities between the two. Trump, according to his former wife, is fascinated with Hitler and reportedly kept a book of his speeches by his bedside. Both Trump and Hitler are master opportunists who respond cunningly and swiftly to their political and social environment. Both identify passionately with the nation, tending to fuse their personality with that of the nation. Both are charismatic figures who appear to mesmerize their followers. The power of both rests on their public speeches and the hysteria generated in the gatherings. Both are vague on facts and on their promises to make the nation “great again.” They have emerged in a time of economic crisis, political uncertainty and widespread fear in society. Both harp on the theme that the nation has been humiliated and that they will restore its honor. Both are political outsiders and mocked by the establishment—note the critics making fun of the hairstyles of both, with Hitler providing additional opportunity with his mustache.
Both Hitler and Trump have found that by keeping the focus of animosity on one unpopular minority as the source of all the ills of society, they can unite people and claim leadership when people are desperately looking for “strong leadership.” Both are capable of cynically exploiting the mood against the minority and dialing it up or down based on what they think the audience would like to hear. Both blame the minority for threatening the equilibrium in society—Hitler blamed the Jews for betraying Germany after the First World War and often cited the fictitious and anti-Semitic “Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” and Trump blames the Muslims for being terrorist sympathizers who want to harm the United States. Both make up lies to promote their bigotry—Hitler constantly cooked up facts about the Jews and Trump has been challenged on statements like claiming that he watched thousands of Muslims celebrating 9/11 in New Jersey.
However much the similarities, there are differences: While Hitler was obsessed with the Jews—“Mein Kampf” is replete with anti-Semitism, as was his last will in the bunker just before he shot himself—Trump has had good relations with Muslims and often does business with them (only last year he was in Dubai promoting his new investments and praising the local leaders).
But I am arguing that Trump does not seem to understand the dangers in the kind of rhetoric that he is using. While we may be a long way away from Kristallnacht, it is worthwhile to point out the signposts on Germany’s path to that fateful night. If Trump does become president, and there are two big ifs for that to happen—he has to get the party nomination and then actually win the presidency—the discussion in this article will no longer be theoretical. Trump has taken the first tiny dangerous steps towards unleashing forces that could trigger large-scale violence against the Muslim community.
Thankfully, many Americans have responded to Trump in the true spirit of their pluralist identity. Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have unequivocally criticized him. More significantly, the other Republican candidates who have also been making Islamophobic comments nonetheless felt it was necessary to condemn Trump—Jeb Bush called his suggestion to ban all Muslims “unhinged” and Lindsey Graham told Trump to “go to hell.”
The United States of 2015 is not the Germany of 1938. It is important to keep in mind that these are two very different societies at different points in their history. Besides, the United States has a very strong base of pluralist identity coming out of the vision of the Founding Fathers and embodied in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. It is this idea of America that will effectively stop men like Trump from taking their hateful message, which challenges the very pluralism that lies at the heart of American identity, to its logical conclusion. The American pluralist vision must be defended as much from the so-called Islamic State abroad as from the Trumps of the U.S., and in this battle, in the most profound way possible, Muslims need to be key allies.
As any social scientist worth their salt will confirm, there is the principle of cause and effect in society. It means that if something is done, then it invariably leads to something else. In our case, the demonization and persecution of the Jews in Germany led ultimately to the tragedy of the Holocaust. That is why we need to understand the consequences of demonizing and persecuting the Muslim community today. There are lessons to be learned from Kristallnacht.
Akbar Ahmed is the Ibn Khaldun Chair of Islamic Studies at American University and has just released the film “Journey into Europe” which accompanies the book of the same title (Brookings Institution Press, Forthcoming). He conducted a major film and book project on Islam in America, both called “Journey into America.”
The Pain-Streaked Optimism of an American Muslim
The Pain-Streaked Optimism of an American Muslim
By Rajia Hassib
A mosque in Bowling Green, Ohio. September, 2004.Credit Photograph by Thomas Dworzak/Magnum
My daughter, with her usual teen-age intensity, comes home and tells me of a boy at school who made an ISIS joke, and of another boy who teasingly accused a girl of being a terrorist for loosely wrapping a scarf around her head. My daughter is especially mortified for a Muslim friend, who was within earshot and who, unlike her, wears a headscarf. I assure her that it’s O.K., that her friend probably didn’t hear him and that, even if she did, she may not have been that affected by his words. I know the girl, a levelheaded sophomore at my daughter’s public high school, kind and calm. I hope my words are true because, even as I speak them, I struggle to maintain my composure.
None of this is particularly new. Life as a Muslim in post-9/11 America is often an exercise in resilience. But I thought I had developed thicker skin by now, if only through repeated exposure to grief. I’ve been following news of terrorist attacks for years, and my reaction has always been the same: pain for the victims, anger with the terrorists, and fear of the inevitable backlash. The repetitiveness of these emotions is exhausting. Every time I hear of a new terrorist attack—Paris, San Bernardino—I feel like I’ve been through all of this before, several times too often. It’s like being stuck in a time loop in Dante’s Inferno, where Virgil guides me, again and again, through the seventh circle of Hell, home to the violent and the blasphemous. With each lull in terrorist activity, I hope that I may graduate to the next two circles and, eventually, hopefully, to Purgatory, but then something else happens and we’re back to circle seven.
But my daughter’s story brings me a fresh pain, for this time the wave of Islamophobia has been caused not only by terrorist attacks but also by the rhetoric of almost every Republican Presidential candidate. Now American Muslims are being vilified by their fellow Americans, and have to face the added pain of a rejection that stings of betrayal. I hear Donald Trump speak and I mumble that this should not be happening. Not here, not to me, and certainly not to my kids, who were born and raised here.
I came to the U.S. when I was twenty-three. My husband and I, both Egyptians, landed at J.F.K. with one suitcase each and two sets of dreams: his was to become an American-trained doctor, and mine was to become a writer. I think back on both of us, in our twenties, armed with the infinite optimism only immigrants can embrace. Everything seemed so simple. This was America. Here, if you had a dream you worked for it, and more often than not it came true.
It would be years before I would learn the term for what we were pursuing: the American Dream. By then, I was in my thirties, sitting in a college class, back at school to abandon my B.A. in architecture, earned in Egypt, in favor of a B.A., and then an M.A., in English. In college, I read “The Great Gatsby” and “Death of a Salesman,” and I came home to my husband one night and told him all about the American Dream’s potential for disillusionment, about the perils of pursuing a mirage or, worse, something that promises happiness without realizing that this particular happiness was not what one needed or wanted.
My husband looked at me as if I were being blasphemous. “The American Dream is true,” he claimed. “Just look at us.”
By then, he had finished his medical training and started his own practice. I was well on my way to earning both of my degrees in English, and it was only a few years before my first novel would be published. Both of our dreams did, indeed, come true, even my audacious one of publishing a novel in English when my native language was Arabic. Of course we both believed in the limitless possibilities of the American Dream.
Of course, we are both Muslims. When Trump speaks of a national registry for Muslims, of closing down mosques, of banning Muslim travel to the U.S., what I hear is this: “You are an outsider. You will remain an outsider. You will die an outsider. You will never be one of us.”
At some point, while I was earning my degrees and writing my novel, I became the Other. And here I had believed that I was a fully integrated, good American citizen, rejoicing in my achievements, thankful, every day, for what this country has given me. My American heart bleeds.
My Muslim heart is equally pained. Growing up in a liberal, not particularly religious household, I read the Qur’an on my own for the first time when I was twelve. I fell in love with the beautiful, soothing language, and with a God who, above all, promises mercy: who proclaims that taking one life equals the murder of all humanity, and that saving one life equals the saving of all. I have since reread the Qur’an about once every year, and as I grew older I also fell in love with the idea of a deity who communicates with people through words, who sends his worshippers a text and leaves them free to interpret it.
Free will, as Milton’s “Paradise Lost” has taught me, can be tricky. It can allow evil to happen, but it also shows a tremendous degree of respect for the human intellect. We are deemed intelligent enough to think independently. In fact, we are encouraged to do so; a quick search reveals that the command “strive to understand” is repeated in various forms in the Qur’an at least twenty-four times, including, in some instances, in the exasperated form of “Have you no sense?” The Qur’an reveals a God who assumes that we have an intellect and urges us to use it. He obviously takes a risk, but, more important, He respects our capacity for thought.
So when Mike Huckabee declares that Muslims leave Friday prayer as “uncorked animals” and that Islam “promotes the most murderous mayhem on the planet,” I am deeply pained. This Islamophobic rhetoric stings not only in its insult to my religion but also in the humiliating tone it takes when speaking of me and my fellow Muslims. If God has condescended to respect my capacity for thought, I would assume that Republican Presidential candidates would not find themselves above offering me the same courtesy. Instead, so many of them claim or imply that any Muslim can be brainwashed into becoming a terrorist, willfully ignoring the fact that if all 1.6 billion of us were as violent as they claimed the world would have ended a long time ago, and we would all have been having these conversations as we awaited our turn to be sorted into our eternal abodes in Heaven or Hell. That kind of rhetoric is unfair.
And yet, I cannot help but remain hopeful. You may assume that I’ve resorted to hopefulness as a means to self-preservation, and you would probably be right. As an immigrant, I do need to believe that the one decision that set the course of my entire life was the correct one. As a parent, I cling to the hope that my kids will not have to face religious persecution and discrimination, because believing otherwise would be unbearable. As a Muslim, I can testify that surviving in the U.S. under the current political conditions requires almost as much optimism as believing in the American Dream does.
For full article, please click
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-pain-streaked-optimism-of-an-american-muslim?