The point is, I was doing precisely what I so dislike — not seeing the connection between the two. I thought that since this was a faith based textiles and fashion blog, I should probably leave more overtly systematic theological aspects out of it. Pah! No more!

With all that lead in, this isn’t actually going to by about systematics. Sorry. Not today. But it is going to be about ponderings. You see, I feel it is time for me to confess something: I’m not really a Mennonite. Okay, that’s not really true. I am a card carrying Mennonite  in that I am an active member in a Mennonite congregation, I am a passionate grad student in a Mennonite institution, I am a pacifist, I love potlucks, and I plan on doing my PhD dissertation in part on Mennonite beliefs. But most importantly, these activities are not some happy coincidence, but a reflection of the deep resonance I find in Mennonite theology and community. These are my people, by choice and by association.

Proud to be Mennonite - Too Humble to Say So Out Loud

But not by bloodline. My mother is Mennonite, but it’s not in her genes, either. She joined the church in her early twenties for many of the same reasons I did at about the same age. But I can pass. My heritage is thoroughly German, I speak it a bit, and my family is from Ohio and Indiana. But alas, there is one dead giveaway. I don’t have a Menno name. My husband also identifies as a Mennonite (usually) but is also lacking the pedigree. So I didn’t even get it through marriage. This has always been present in my mind, but has become more so lately. I’m not really sure why. But at the lunch table in my school the other day, I was discussing how I need to learn which Mennonite names are Swiss Mennonite, and which are Russian Mennonite for a project I’m working on. Those at the table who also joined the church as adults identified with this, but one of my professors — who has the Kentucky Derby bloodline of Mennonites — commented on how, for him, it was simply an instinctual thing.

Why do I covet this so? Literally millions of people have joined the Mennonite church without said historic bloodlines, so I’m certainly not alone. And frankly, it’s probably a good thing — genetically speaking — to mix it up a bit. But my family has been Methodist for generations, and while I have nothing against Methodists, I don’t identify with the denomination. It also doesn’t exist in Canada anymore. As I’ve already mentioned, I resonate with Mennonite Anabaptism — the people, the activism, the focus on community, the music, the textile arts, the culture, and most of all, the theology. (Side note: in my first year Intro to Theology class we discussed whether or not there was “Mennonite theology,” and the final consensus was that this is all Christian theology, not Mennonite. While yes, I agree it is certainly Christian theology, I find a very distinct flavour to the Mennonite theology and witness)

This is a tribe I absolutely love belonging to, and it is so important to me that this is the community in which we are raising our children. Besides, I know many Mennonites who have the lineage but do not identify with the faith. I just wish I had both.

Malalai Joya's book. This image comes from the web site of Afghan Women's Mission, an organization well worth checking out.

This book is her account of her life and her activism. She is most known as the youngest and most outspoken member of Afghanistan’s parliament, where she served for Farah province from 2005-2007, when she was dismissed from her position for consistently denouncing the government corruption. Most particularly, Malalai takes issue with the warlords and human rights criminals now sitting in parliament and other government offices, enacting laws similar to those of the Taliban’s, without ever standing trial for the crimes against humanity they committed during the civil war (the time between Soviet occupation and the Taliban).

There’s no question that Malalai is brave. She has survived multiple assassination attempts, keeps her true surname a secret to protect her family, moves to a new safe house every night, is constantly surrounded by her security detail (headed by a trusted uncle) and is forced to wear a burqa while in public to protect her identity from would-be assassins.

It’s easy enough to learn more about Joya. Simply Google her name or go to www.malalaijoya.com. Most of what’s out there is her political activism. This is undeniably important and inspiring. But here are some of the parts of her story that I like the best.

To start with, while never sugarcoating or downplaying the many challenges Afghanistan faces, Malalai presents an Afghanistan few people ever hear of or see. She talks about the goodness and strength of the ordinary “barefoot Afghans,” as she calls them. For example, she describes how during the time of the Taliban, when women were not allowed to leave the home unattended by a close male relative (a mahram), she personally witnessed and heard multiple stories of Afghans helping each other. When the Taliban stopped unattended women (as we all know, the consequences for which could be dire) many time complete (male) strangers would step in and say, “No, I am her mahram.” This was, of course, extremely dangerous for the men themselves.

In another instance, Malalai describes her older brother’s resistance to the Taliban. He concealed a camera and took pictures of the Taliban’s human rights atrocities. One day he came across an execution victim (their bodies were often put on display) and he took a quick picture. A Taliban patrol saw him and began beating him. They forced her brother to accompany them to a photo developing store. He waited with two other men who had also been taking pictures. When the photos were developed, the Talibs brought them to him and asked if they were his. The role was a series of wedding photos and nothing more. Of course they weren’t his, but he said they were. The Taliban let him go, but then he began to worry about the two men left behind. What if the photos had been mixed up and they were punished for his? He went back to the store to see what would happen. After a while both the other men were also released. He found out later that the man in the store switched the roles of film with some harmless ones other customers had left

Another part of Malalai’s story I find particularly interesting regards her upbringing in refugee camps. As anyone who reads this blog knows, refugee issues are especially close to my heart. Malalai is a perfect example of the point – far too often forgotten – that refugees are individuals with the same hopes, dreams, fears and potential as any other person.

Malalai spent most of her childhood and adolescence in refugee camps in Iran and Pakistan. In this part of her story she highlights two things: the terrible treatment Afghan refugees faced in Iran and the importance of having the opportunity to receive an education. Regarding the first, I confess I didn’t know this. She describes Afghans as second class citizens in Iran and is critical of the influence the mullahs of Iran wish to have and do exert on Afghanistan’s politics. Much of what Malalai says regarding fundamentalism (the term she uses for the “dark minded” individuals who prefer to forbid the sound of women’s laughter) is very interesting to me and what I study. Particularly when she says “… just as you cannot judge a book by its cover, you could not tell who was fundamentalist and who was a democrat by what they wore” (p. 69). This is an extremely important point. She uses it to highlight the hypocrisy and danger of fundamentalist war criminals who shaved their beards and adopted business suits. This is also true to the reverse. Part of my surprise of Malalai’s description of Iran and its policies comes from having met Iranian mullahs in dialogue (see post on this here). They were extremely gentle in their beliefs and demeanor. When I pushed a bit with one cleric in particular on gender issues, I could find no fault with any of his answers. When I commented on this he observed, “many places in the world, particularly in the Islamic world, the men are very hard. Very hard. They have lived hard lives and they take this out on their women, even to the point of violating them. This is absolutely haram!” (Haram means forbidden or sinful in Islam)

To expand on this point, I return to Malalai’s account. “As a social activist and politician, I don’t talk a lot about Islam. Too often extremists invoke Islam to justify crimes against the people. And politicians invoke Islam rather than focusing on what policies they will implement. The people of Afghanistan have Islam in their hearts and minds. They don’t need those who are a shame to Islam to impose their rules on them in the name of Islam. They don’t need it in their government, and they do not need anyone – certainly not politicians – to guide them in their faith” (pp. 97-98).

At a press conference in June, 2010, Malalai condemns the inclusion of war criminals in the "Peace Jirga"

The final point I’d like to discuss is education. Malalai received an education because she grew up in refugee camps. She is a strong advocate for the importance of education in a person’s life. In one example, two young girls came to see her because their father would not let them attend school. They asked if she would speak with him and she agreed. When he arrived it turned out that he was a huge supporter of hers. She pointed out to him that if he supported her words and her thoughts, he had to consider how she learned to think that way. That it was all possible because she had gone to school and that if he wanted the same for his daughters then he needed to send them to school, too. He agreed and enrolled his daughters (to their great joy!)

While we give lip service to the importance of education, we forget how essential it is for human rights to take root. As Malalai says, women cannot fight for their rights if they don’t know them. And it’s not just about educating to a certain perspective. It’s one of the only sustainable ways out of poverty – a problem that afflicts 70% of Afghans.

I am inspired and hopeful when I read Malalai’s story. It is people like her that make a brighter future for this war ravaged country a real possibility. This is what Afghanistan (and indeed, many such areas) needs – a homegrown leader pointing the way. Not foreigners telling them what to do.

Luxe Silk Voile Scarf

It’s been a while since I profiled a funky fashion artisan, and I feel so inspired today. While researching a paper on the controversy over the proposed niqab (Muslim face veil) ban in Québec, I came across this web site: http://www.thestyleunderground.com/ Actually, I came across her YouTube videos first (researching hijab tying styles). Definitely well worth a watch! In fact, my husband is in love with them, too. He’s used to being surrounded by fabric loving (he gets it full force from his mother – and avid quilter – and me) and he works in media communications, so he’s all about how you present your message. And she presents it well (plus he likes her smile ! Unlike most fashion how-tos on YouTube, she doesn’t blather on. In fact, she doesn’t speak at all, and it’s extremely effective. Instead she picks some fun music and simply shows you how to tie the scarves. And the results are fabulous! The scarves are gorgeous and the final effect is stunning – often simply and elegantly.

I don’t know what her guiding belief system is. None of her literature states it. I would be interested to know if she is part of this emerging trend of Western non-Muslim women who are choosing a modesty represented in hair covering and non-revealing clothing. On the other hand, she may very well be Muslim, Orthodox Jewish, Greek Orthodox, or another religion entirely. Her site does have an “About” section which explains this much:

What we stand for: Luxury and Modesty.

Design philosophy: Innovative, classic, and well-crafted.

Our designs will make getting dressed the most artistic, exciting part of your day!

All accessories from The Style Underground are meticulously handcrafted from scratch on professional equipment. Go ahead and indulge yourself!

I don’t even know her name. But whatever her religious or personal identity, her sense of style is fabulous, and her videos make for hours of entertainment and inspiration (trust me, I know!)

Just to get you hooked

An image from an earlier Dialogue.

At the beginning of June I had the incredible experience of observing the fifth dialogue between Shia clerics from the Ayatollah Khomeini Institue in Qom, Iran, and Mennonite theologians from across North America (including [shout out to] my own two amazing professors, Dr. Derek Suderman [Old Testament] and Dr. Jeremy Bergen [Systematic Theology]). There is so much to say on this experience that I realize I will need more than one post. This will be the first – introducing what the Dialogue is.

When I first began my Master’s program, I knew I was interested in interfaith dialogue, and as soon as I learned about this ongoing Dialogue I was intrigued. I knew I wanted to attend, but I didn’t expect what I got.

Let’s start at the beginning. In 1990 there was a large earthquake in Iran (Iran is one of the most seismically active regions in the world) and Mennonite Central Committee responded to the humanitarian crisis. As the MCC staff worked alongside Iranian spiritual leaders, they decided a student exchange between the Ayatollah Khomeini Institute and the Toronto School of Theology would be a good thing. The exchange proved quite successful, and several years into this the participants agreed that it would be really great if they could get articulate Shia and Mennonite theologians together to, well, talk theology (what else?) So here we are, in 2011, with the fifth such dialogue. It is held every two years and alternates between Iran and Canada (although there is hope an American school will host in the future).

Now, not everyone is a fan. Aside from the likes of Terry Jones, intelligent and thoughtful people oppose the Dialogue for different reasons. Some say the Mennonites are playing with fire, associating with Iranian leaders. I just tend to disagree with them (such thinkers don’t usually grasp the methodology of dialogue, nor would understand our pacifist theology). But there is also a very important population whom we shouldn’t ignore, and to whom we need to reach out – Iranian Canadians who fled Iran after the Revolution. When Dialogue III was held in Waterloo, such protesters shut down the Dialogue (read an article about it here.) They were not impressed with Canadian Mennonites speaking with representatives of the government they fled. So MCC and other Mennonite leaders did a lot of explaining on what our theology says about befriending your enemy (which in turn took some explaining to our Iranian friends who wanted to know why we referred to them as enemies). That experience led to this Dialogue being much more private, with invited guests only, so that the theologians could talk theology.

But this, too, leaves me with questions. Theology (as any decent theologian will tell you) is not merely esoteric ideas, but tangible, operative, and lived out. And while I completely agree that our guests should feel welcome and safe, and that for a discussion to be productive it needs to have parameters, do we do ourselves and our neighbours a disservice when we don’t allow more vociferous dissent? Dialogue III was stopped by the protesters because the Mennonite organizers were not comfortable blocking protests altogether, and in fact met with them earlier. MCC was specific that they had no desire to deny the experiences of those who had suffered under the current Iranian government. As a humanitarian organization MCC in particular, and as people of faith we Mennonites in general have an obligation to respect the dignity of both sides. Not easily done!

But back to this dialogue. The theme this year was Human Nature and Destiny: Explorations into Theological Anthropology. The papers were as follow:

Mohammad Ali Shomali, “Human Nature According to the Qur’an”

Gordon Zerbe, “Human Nature in Biblical Perspective”

Mohammad Fanaei Eshkevari, “The Concept of Perfect Man in Holy Qur’an”

Jo-Ann Brant, “The Way of Perfection”

Aboulhassan Haghani, “The Way of Perfection”

Harry Huebner, “Sin and Grace”

Ali Mesbah, “Religion, Culture, and Social Well-Being from Islamic Perspective”

David Shenk, “Culture and Faith in a Mennonite-Christian Perspective”

Aboulfazl Sajedi, “Islam and Human Rights”

Peter Dula, “Theological Assessment of Human Rights Language”

Mohammad Motahari Farimani, “The Role of ‘Turning to the Self’: Introspection in the Qur’anic Discourse”

Jeremy Bergen, “Conscience: The Role of Individual and Community”

Abbas Ali Shameli, “The Engendered Islamic Culture of Development”

Derek Suderman, “Created as Male and Female”

Really, really interesting papers. And here was my biggest shock of the conference – it wasn’t the conference itself I was drawn to, but rather the theological exchange of ideas. I had my two favourite groups of people side by side – Mennonite Central Committee workers (fellow observers) and theologians (I was one happy kid!). And it was the academic intellectual conversation, more than the human interest and cultural exchange (as great as that was) that enthralled me. I’m hooked. I mean completely and totally hooked. I knew it would be good, but I had no idea it would be this good!

In my next posts, I’ll explore some of what I found challenging, what I found especially enjoyable, and (best of all!) the theology itself.

In the meantime, here are a series of interesting blog posts participants who went to Qom, Iran, for the last dialogue wrote:

http://jdarylbyler.wordpress.com/

#1 – I love anything interfaith (this video is not itself interfaith, of course, but as I am not Jewish and love it, it reflects interfaith interaction)

#2 – I just finished a course on the Hebrew Bible

#3 – I love the real song, Dynamite.

Enjoy!

1) It’s a symbol of oppression — many women choose to wear it as a reflection of deeply held belief and identity. Who are you to tell a woman she’s oppressed? What, she needs someone to do that for her? She’s not capable of deciding for herself? Yes, that’s liberation.

2) We need to see your face, for both security and service — women who veil are perfectly willing to show their faces when necessary to an official. They prefer it be a woman official, but if that’s not a possibility that’s okay. They have images of themselves without their veil or coverings, and they’re okay with their id showing their faces. They just don’t want it on display for the public. Think breast exams, Western women. We’ll do it because we need to, but we’re not thrilled and we won’t let anyone who doesn’t need to do it do it!

It goes on and on. There’s more to say on this, of course, but for now, I wanted to share a headline that caught my eye.

In France, two students (one in poli sci, one in communications) has decided to create a tongue in cheek critique of the niqab ban. They’ve donned the niqab, leaving only their eyes visible from the waste up, but are wearing miniskirts with bare legs exposed down to their high heels. They’re strutting past ministerial offices and calling themselves the “niqabitches.” And they’re definitely getting people talking.

They’re clear that their aim is not to antagonize fundamentalist Muslims, but rather are poking at a political angle. They felt that wearing a full burqa would be too simple, and wanted to generate more conversation. They’ve created a video out of this, and all seem to agree that when it’s released it will be an internet sensation.

I for one can’t wait to see it!

By the way, does anyone else find it creepy that if a woman wears a niqab when the ban is in place, she could be sentenced to “a course of citizenship lessons”?

Hutchison points out that within the mid 1840s to mid 1850s, 3 million immigrants came to America’s shores, adding to a population of 20 million. That’s a lot. Furthermore, these immigrants, and the ones that kept coming afterwards, drastically changed the face of America, and what it meant to be an American. While from its earliest days of European settlement, America had (and continues to have) a large diversity of religious beliefs. While the religious diversity of that time was largely Christian, it should not be overlooked what a big deal it was in the 18th and 19th century to have Calvinists, Lutherans and Quakers living (largely) companionably side by side.

Irish immigrants on ship, 1846. Assumption College.

“But the forms of population increase that produced the most widespread and malevolent responses were of course those that were visible ‘in the neighborhood.” Here we are talking especially about the rapidly growing numbers of Germans and Irish in the American population. In 1790 fewer than 9 percent of white Americans were of German ancestry, and the percentage of Irish, especially of Catholic Irish, was well below that.” (Hutchison, Kindle 307).

The Germans, largely Lutheran, began to effect the monopoly Calvinism had on American Protestantism.

“Protestants [were] apprehensive about their loss of cultural power. The fact that church members and churchgoers were now about 60 percent Protestant instead of nearly all Protestant was, to them, highly and frighteningly relevant.” (Hutchison, Kindle 326).

So what? Well, as Hutchison himself points out: “In our own day, a number of world societies have experienced grave apprehensions and some degree of violence in response to immigration rates well below that of early-nineteenth-century America.”

The Lutheran Germans and Catholic Irish of the 1840s/50s were as strange and exotic to British American Protestants as Muslim and Buddhist immigrants are to North American society today.

To put it mildly, I was disgusted when I learned that a Pastor (does he deserve that term?) has decided to burn Qurans in Florida to mark the anniversary of September 11. Let’s be clear about a few things right from the get-go.

#1 – Sept. 11 was a horrific, horrific day. Thousands of men, women and children of every age, ethnicity, religion, nationality and creed were brutally murdered that day. There can never be justification for such atrocities.

#2 – Holding all Muslim people accountable for it is like holding people around the world with German ancestry accountable for the Holocaust.

#3 – The Quran teaches peace.

As a Mennonite, and therefore as a pacifist, I do take issue with what in Islam is similar to Christianity’s  Just War Theory. But that is because I am a pacifist. I don’t believe war is ever justified. But while this is certainly a significant theological difference, justified violence is certainly not even remotely unique to Islam. In fact, the majority of Christianity preaches it. And, like the majority of Christianity, it comes with a whole slew of qualifications, specifications, and comes from a place of respect for humanity.

But I digress. I challenge any Christian who believes that the Quran is not about peace to actually read it. Not an odd segment here or there, but the book itself. I am a Christian, and a card-carrying member (if we had cards) of a Mennonite Church, and I believe in Jesus Christ as wholly man and wholly God. I do not deny the particularities that come with my Christian faith, but that in no way inhibits me from seeing the profound depth of Islamic theology. Woe to the Christian who dismisses the scriptures of other religions, simply because it does not bear the stamp you identify with.

But even if you do not have eyes to see what you can learn about your own faith from that of another, how can you possibly justify – as a Christian – denying the dignity of other children of God (because do remember that all are God’s children – the Bible’s pretty clear on that one). And how, as a responsible member of human society, can you ever advocate book burning?!

Shame on that pastor (who’s hardly acting pastoral). He does not speak for us as Christians, and frankly I expect better of my fellow Christians.

To end, I’m including a copy of an open letter from Mennonite Central Committee U.S.:

An Open Pastoral Letter to Anabaptist Churches from MCC U.S.

September 8, 2010

In response to the attacks of September 11, 2001, many members of Mennonite and Brethren in Christ congregations reached out to Muslims in their communities to support and encourage them. In the face of ever-increasing anti-Islam sentiment, Mennonite Central Committee (MCC) U.S. urges congregations to redouble those efforts.

MCC U.S. also calls on the Florida church that has stated its intent to burn copies of the Quran on the anniversary of the attacks to abandon the plan and instead embrace Christ’s love for all. 

Anabaptist history provides a sobering reminder of the need to respect those with a different faith. During the 1500s in Europe, religious and political leaders persecuted Anabaptist believers, with thousands facing violence or death as a result of their beliefs. Because of this history, Anabaptists around the world have long advocated for freedom of religious expression for people of all faiths. In the 20th century, some Anabaptist communities in Canada and the U.S. again were subject to stereotyping during the first and second World Wars, as a result of their German heritage. Experiences such as these should reinforce for all Christians, and especially Anabaptists, the dangers of assumptions and stereotypes about one’s beliefs.Christians should take instead the example of Jesus, who reached out in love and respect to all who drew near to him. He recognized the human dignity and worth in every person, as created in God’s image (Genesis 1:27). He challenged his followers to extend compassion without reservation (Matthew 22:34-40; 1 John 4:7-21).

 MCC’s work around the world, including in predominantly Muslim countries, has shown us the importance of interfaith bridge-building. MCC is committed to continuing and strengthening this work in international contexts but encourages Anabaptists in the United States to also find ways to build these bridges in their own communities.

The Bible tells us to extend hospitality (Hebrews 13:1-2; 1 Peter 4:8-10). Sharing in meals and conversation can be a radical act, and a powerful counteraction to violence. Let us follow Jesus by showing hospitality to neighbors near and far.

Cargo ship Sun Sea docks in B.C. full of Tamil asylum seekers

Experts in the government have discredited the passengers as frauds and economic opportunists. A government official said, “The line must be drawn somewhere.” Their government has assured us that they’re closely monitoring their situation, and everything is alright. If we let them in, their counterparts will arrive in floods. Clearly, they must be turned away.

Oh, but wait. This isn’t the Sun Sea, that docked in British Columbia full of Tamil refugee claimants a few days ago. This is 1939, and the boat  is the St. Louis, filled with 930 Jews from Nazi Germany. That’s right. We turned away Jewish refugees during World War II, citing all the same reasons we want to turn away refugees today. “Brain drain”, “economic opportunists,” and yup, even “terrorists.” We turned away this ship, and denied all claims of asylum, because we didn’t believe them and we didn’t want them. Almost everyone aboard that ship died in Nazi concentration camps, because every harbour they sailed to rejected them, and left with no choice they returned to Europe.

Jewish Refugees aboard the St. Louis, 1939

After the horrors of the Holocaust were fully realized, the countries of the world, with the West in the lead, declared “never again.” Something had to be done to help asylum seekers, hence the creation of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the 1951 Refugee Convention (of which Canada is a signatory). This convention defines who is and who is not a refugee. In fact, the definitions are somewhat limited and do not include the c. 30 million internally displaced persons (IDPs).

This is not charity. This is a legal obligation where we committed to never return refugees if they have a valid fear of persecution. Once asylum seekers reach our waters and are in Canada, they cannot be returned unless their claims are denied.

This process itself is not exactly the welcoming arms of comfort it was intended to be. Our review process has changed from one of determining legitimacy of their fears, to one of trying to find fault with their claims. A subtle, but very important difference. Claimants are regularly refused asylum with decisions that essentially say, “we believe that everything you’ve said is true. Everything you said happened to you actually did. But we’re sending you back because we think things are better now/you could’ve gone somewhere else.”

For the people on board the Sea Sun – ranging in age from under a year to their late seventies – the review process will cost the Canadian government about $ 24 million. That might sound like a lot, but when you consider that several hundred people granted asylum will start to pay taxes, earn jobs, and contribute to the economy, it is a clear net intake. That’s right, refugees are not a drain on the system, as is commonly thought. In fact, study after economic study has proven that refugees actually boost a country’s economy and make significant contributions to their new society.

But what about turning away boats before they arrive? That’s illegal. The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, along with other human rights organizations, have found that asylum seekers’ right to life legally requires that they have a fair process to determine their claims, not an arbitrary one at sea. Closer to home, such an act would violate our own Charter. The Supreme Court of Canada has determined that we cannot be complicit in human right abuses or torture, and that turning asylum seekers away without first fairly determining their risk would violate their right to life and security of the person.

As a country, along with other countries such as the U.S. and Australia (who, for the record, both take in far more refugee claimants than Canada) we have committed to these laws because we were determined to learn from our past. We do not have the right to judge past wrongs if we refuse to change our ways.

On the other side of the world, a Muslim group in New York City are building a Mosque and Islamic Centre adjacent to 9-11′s Ground Zero. Touchy issue. Or is it? Well, it has certainly become one in the last few days, but ironically, when

Daisy Khan, wife of the "Ground Zero Mosque"'s Imam

they started building it wasn’t. See this article from the Washington Post for more info: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2010/08/17/AR2010081701473.html?hpid=topnews But basically the Imam of the Mosque said years ago that they were building it because of its location. In fact, it’s situated exactly where some of the wreckage from the Twin Towers fell. That’s because, as he says, this centre is the antithesis of what happened on 9-11. They are actively working to fight against extremism. Conservative radio host Laura Ingraham interviewed the Imam’s wife on the O’Reilly factor, and said “I can’t find many people who really have a problem with it. . . . I like what you’re trying to do.” Well, unfortunately, in recent days the tone has changed a lot and many people now see this mosque as an unpopular group pushing their rights insensitively in the faces of people still in mourning.

So, what do the floods and the Mosque have in common? That we, who are not Muslims in the West, have the opportunity of either helping extremism along, or helping to quelch it. Not through dropping bombs on extremists (anyone notice how that tends to breed more extremists, not fewer?). For someone who is desperately thirsty or hungry, they’re not going to refuse water or food for their children. Pakistan, unfortunately, has several hotbeds of extremism, but the majority are moderate Muslims. If the West turns away from them in their hour of desperate need, while the extremists provide aid, who do you think is going to win their favour? In New York, when a progessive group of Muslims tries to actively engage in community building to foster better relations between Muslims and other people, and to provide Muslim youth with positive direction, should we support them or suppress them? Who do you want teaching young Muslims the way of Islam?