Several of the editors and writers at altmuslim have had the opportunity to work with Farah Pandith, who until recently was the senior adviser on Muslim engagement in Europe at the US State Department. She spearheaded many new initiatives to build bridges between Muslim-Americans and their European counterparts, in the hope that combining our shared experiences could accelerate integration and push back extremist viewpoints. Many Muslim Americans have long made the argument that our community can play a role in helping to heal tensions, and Farah helped to make that vision a reality.

Yesterday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced that Farah will be heading up an expanded version of her earlier program that engages Muslim communities around the world. Her new appointment comes on the heels of President Obama's Cairo address, where he pledged a substantive relationship with Muslims. It is a testament to Farah's abilities and character that she has now been appointed by both the Bush and Obama administrations to help represent US-Muslim relations.

Having worked with Farah for over five years, we can attest to her professionalism, dedication, and pride in her identity as a Muslim American. We are looking forward to continuing our work with her in her new role and encourage other Muslim Americans to do the same. (No comments)

Many have died tragic - and silent - deaths in the post-election violence in Iran. But one woman, Neda Agha Soltan, became a symbol with her death caught on video. Neda's sniper death at the hands of the basiji militia has become a thorn in the side of the Iranian government (which knows how much martyrdom resonates among its population) and a cause celebré abroad, with even US President Barack Obama commenting the "heartbreaking" story.

Neda was later buried in a southern Tehran cemetary, with memorial services banned by the government. Neda's fiance, Caspian Makan, called her a “beam of light” who “couldn’t stand the injustice of it all. All she wanted was the proper vote of the people to be counted.”

Here, Makan comments further on her story in a Persian interview transcribed exclusively for altmuslim.com (Note that the video referenced by Makan is shown after his comments and may be disturbing to watch):

Gray haired man [in the video] is her music teacher not her father.

Her desire was was freedom for the Iranian people. She did not support Musavi nor Ahmadinejad.

Helicopters where firing live bullets into the crowed, I was at another protest in which my phone ran and I saw her name and I picked up the phone and expecting to hear her voice but it was her sister who told me that Nedah aziz [my sweet Neda] was martyred.

The bullet was from a large gun. She was not in the middle of the major protest. They stop to get out of their car which was stuck in traffic for nearly an hour. She steps out and in a span of six minutes she dies after receiving a bullet to the heart.

They rush her to the hospital in another car. She had nothing in her hand, no rocks or any displays of green. She was a simple 26 year old, she was sweet, a ray of light and very peace loving.

I wonder what they have to say about killing someone like Neda? Do they have any answer for that.

We were separated for about 2 weeks to make a decision on whether we wanted to get married. We saw each other a day before she was killed. We stumbled across the issues of the current riots in which they would order, I asked her not no participate but she insisted that she wanted to go and be counted and stand with her people. I am not a person who was going to impose my will on her and force her not to go.

We want our rights, our rights are logical in which we want our basic freedoms which are not any different than for any other people.

There was fighting between 4 p.m and 6 p.m. but she took a route to get to her house and not to go and protest. Her soul had a burning voice for freedom and I think that her voice has reached the people.

It is not just about Neda, there are others who died like her. They wanted to decide the direction of the bullet. They wanted to start arresting the perpetrator.

Unfortunately, they did not allow us to have a public mourning. the mosque in which we held the service was on Shariati street. There was a conflict with the authorities with respect to even having a public mourning even in our house.

She did not vote, we did not have a desire to vote, on the day of the vote she did not leave the house. As I stated she was not supporting either side. Her vision was to pursue to freedom but did not feel that it would be attained through either these two options.

She was at Azad University, she was interested in philosophy of religion. Then she started music.

I thank the entire people of Iran and the rest of the world that have sent they condolences, which proves that Neda's voice reached the world in which to pursue freedom in a way so that no more innocent blood is shed.

-Caspian Makan

(No comments)

Back in 2005, we featured a story on a new play by a young Muslim American student in the San Francisco Bay Area called The Domestic Crusaders (it was discussed on our second ever podcast). That student was Wajahat Ali, whose talented writing and interview skills led him to help edit the pages of altmuslim.com.

The Domestic Crusaders focuses on a day in the life of a modern Muslim Pakistani-American family of six eclectic, unique members, who convene at the family house to celebrate the twenty-first birthday of the youngest child. With a background of 9-11 and the scapegoating of Muslim Americans, the tensions and sparks fly among the three generations, culminating in an intense family battle as each "crusader" struggles to assert and impose their respective voices and opinions, while still attempting to maintain and understand that unifying thread that makes them part of the same family.

This year, The Domestic Crusaders will make its landmark debut in New York, Off Broadway, at the historic Nuyorican Theater on September 11, 2009 for a 5 week run. The play has received standing ovations from sold out crowds and been praised by international media outlets such as the BBC and San Francisco Chronicle and from personalities such as Academy Award winner Emma Thompson and Macarthur Genius Ishmael Reed.

The Domestic Crusaders is an independent, grassroots production. Already, $15,000 has been raised from donations worldwide for the historic premiere in NYC and only $10,000 more is needed to fulfill Ali's goal. All contributions are tax deductible since "The Domestic Crusaders" is sponsored by the respected non-profit artistic organization, The Before Columbus Foundation.

You can contribute online using Paypal or mail a tax deductible check to help make history!

"The Domestic Crusaders is to Muslim American theater what A Raisin in the Sun is to African American theater."
— Pulitzer Prize nominated author Mitch Berman

"The Domestic Crusaders is exactly the sort of theater we need today. The gulf that separates cultures must be bridged and Art is one of our best hopes. I'll be supporting this all the way - please join me and Wajahat in building this bridge!."
— Emma Thompson, Academy Award winning actress and screenwriter

"Domestic Crusaders" should be ranked with family dramas written by Tennessee Williams and Eugene O'Neil."
-MacArthur Genius, Pulitzer Prize nominated author Ishmael Reed

"This play could change the history of American theater, and of America itself."
- Lawrence Swaim, In Focus Magazine

"The Domestic Crusaders" is what all high art aspires to do — spotlight complicated truths (and contradictions) without offering easy answers."
- San Francisco Chronicle, Jon Curiel

"The only play of its kind, “Domestic Crusaders” offers a fresh take on the family drama while demystifying that tense terrain between "us” and "them." A true theatrical breakthrough."
-Newsweek's Lorraine Ali

View more of Wajahat's adventures in casting for The Domestic Crusaders at Time Magazine in a short film created by Bassam Tariq. (No comments)

There was every indication that US President Barack Obama would fill his long-awaited address to Muslims from a Muslim capital with conciliatory, respectful language. On numerous occasions since his oath of office (but rarely before), he has spoken to Muslim people in Iran, Turkey, and elsewhere about the mistrust that has developed over the years since September 11, 2001. But Obama is, at heart, a pragmatist, and while he has a vision Muslims can warm up to, he is mindful not to overreach to the point where things can backfire.

A week ago, I made a reference to these "unsaids," hoping that Obama would inject some honesty about the issues that are now common knowledge among Muslims worldwide - the lack of political freedom, Israel's nuclear capabilities, America's past missteps - that helped fuel conspiracy and hostility towards the US. To a large degree, Obama did this, but in a gentler way than many would like.

Departing from the "with us or against us" rhetoric of his predecessor, Obama referred to "Muslim communities" rather than the "Muslim world," a nuanced difference (advocated by some Muslim analysts) that recognised the complex and integrated relationships now in place between East and West. It acknowledged, as part of his outreach, Muslim communities in Europe, where tensions have increased in recent years.

He referred to abuses America made towards Muslims in terms of colonialism (explicitly referring to the American-sponsored overthrow of a democratic government in Iran in 1953), civil rights, and Iraq, imploring both sides not to rely on crude stereotypes of each other. Key points were that "Islam was not part of the problem" and "Islam is a part of America," citing many Qur'anic quotes in the process. An emphasis on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was a shot over the bow for Iran - and Israel. And aligning the Palestinian struggle with the civil rights movement in the United States is exactly the framework of this issue that resonates in the Middle East and elsewhere.

And in the core of Obama's speech, there was also a fulcrum between the us (America) and them (Muslims) of yore - American Muslims. Over and over, Obama emphasized the freedoms, integration, and contributions made by those in America of the Islamic faith. Between these two audiences, the vision of what could be appears to lie with those few people (described as 7 million strong and, in numbers, one of the world's largest Muslim countries - both unnecessary exaggerations).

Obama himself made many references to the fact that a speech alone won't solve all the problems between America and Muslim communities. But then again, Obama was ridiculed by his campaign opponents for relying on pretty words. And look where that got him.

(Photo: Stephen Friday) (No comments)

When people discuss Muslims and the internet, there is still a tendency to describe it as a dark place where extremists hide and an unreliable source of Islamic information for impressionable youth. And yet, for a European Muslim population of about 20 million, with 4-6 million more in North America, there is a surprising amount of diversity of Islamic thought and opinion. What does it all mean and is it making a difference in the way Islam is practiced?

This Friday, I'll join a distinguished panel of experts at Divan 2.0, a debate sponsored by an online pioneer of sorts -Britain's Radical Middle Way - who have an influential website and podcast of their own (I spoke about their podcast on BBC's Radio Five Live - you can hear the interview here). Now that young people get their primary Islamic information from the Internet (Shaykh Google, if you will), who is controlling the discourse (or, better yet, should there be any control)? Is it just chatter or is a consensus forming about how Islam should be practiced, discussed, and debated in the modern world?

Date: Friday 22 May 2009
Location: Old Theatre, London School of Economics
Address: Houghton Street (off the Aldwych) London WC2A 2AE

Time: Doors open 6:45 pm; Starts 7:15 pm; Ends 8:45 pm

Guests:
Shelina Zahra Janmohamed, Author of Love in a Headscarf and Spirit21 blog
Omar Tufail, Web Guru and Founder, DeenPort.com
Musab Bora, Blogger at Mooslim.com
Indigo Jo, Blogger at www,blogistan.co.uk/blog
Zahed Amanullah, Editor, altmuslim.com

Post questions for us beforehand here. (No comments)

After many requests from customers in areas with significant Muslim populations, Kentucky Fried Chicken (sorry.. KFC) has decided to open 8 of its 720 outlets in the United Kingdom (London, specifically) as halal-only restaurants. That means all pork has been stripped from the restaurant, in order to clear any doubt about halal-ness. Because of KFC's high international profile, there are some expected negative reactions from those who fear an overrun of Muslim laws on British (sorry... American) foods.

But this trend has been around for quite a while. Dominos Pizza opened it's first halal-only store in Birmingham in February and Subway has been operating dozens of its 2,000 restaurants as halal-only stores since 2007. Before that, McDonald's had halal-trial chicken offered in select stores since 2006.

For the multinationals behind these brands, the issue is not about religious deference - it's about sales. One look around Britain's high streets shows an inordinate amount of independent shops with brisk trades in halal chickens, pizzas, and sandwiches - all missing the consistent quality that well-regulated franchised outlets can provide. For most of the current crop of mainstream halal foods being offered, all have been validated on economics alone, with the increase in Muslim consumers far outweighing the ideologically motivated opponents who turn away.

In the end, the free market will decide who wins and loses - and how much halal is offered. When Asda (owned by Walmart and resembling its American stores) started offering quality halal meats at 10 of its British locations, much of the criticism was not from Islam-critics fearful of "Eurabia," but from independent Muslim butchers who felt that they can't compete with the big boys. Seems like a little competition might hurt after all. (No comments)

Much has been said about the tensions that France has had with its Muslim citizens and residents. Some, like the 2005 suburban riots have little to do with religion itself. Others, such as the rejection last year of citizenship to a Muslim woman because of her burka have, well, plenty to do with it.

The latter point of view is notable when considering the news this week that the small Indian Ocean island of Mayotte has voted to become France's latest overseas department. Despite France's colonial legacy, the island's residents have essentially approved a status similar to that America gives to Guam and American Samoa, where legal and economic structures are adopted from the mainland. The catch? Over 95% of the island's residents are Muslim.

The African Union, the Arab League and the neighbouring islands of Comoros (members of both) have objected to the referendum, as Comoros claims sovereignty over the French protectorate. And although France officially remained neutral on the referendum, anti-French demonstrations broke out in Comoros prior to the vote.

But the vote itself is not the final say - that must come from the French government itself. French president Nicolas Sarkozy is supportive of the results, but maintains that some practices on the island must change before Mayotte's status can be upgraded. Specifically, the marriage age would be raised from 15 to 18, the jurisdiction of Islamic courts limited, and polygamy outlawed. It is this last point that caused some imams on the island to campaign for a "no" vote, arguing that the Quran permits up to four wives under certain conditions.

But permission is not the same as obligation, and the astounding 95% of voters who cast their ballots in favour of a French connection (only 70% were expected to vote yes) means that Mayotte's citizens are more than happy to share their croissants and Euros with their solitary spouses. (No comments)

You may not have heard of the bizarre case of a Canadian hostage held by the Taliban, somewhere along the border of Pakistan and Afghanistan, and threatened with beheading by the end of the month. Kidnapped in November of last year, the hostage has released two videos pleading for her life and urging the Canadian or Pakistani governments to meet the Taliban's demands. It was the Taliban who recently beheaded a Polish engineer when their demands to release fellow Taliban prisoners was not met.

But this new hostage is not your usual Western infiltrator. It's Khadija Abdul Qahaar, formerly known as Beverly Giesbrecht, a 52-year old convert to Islam and editor of a controversial website that has, for the past seven years, raised eyebrows on both sides of the Muslim world-Western divide. The site, jihadunspun.com, is devoted to criticizing the "war on terror," though by doing such things has reprising Al Qaeda's views of events and expressing support for... the Taliban.

All this makes Giesbrecht's situation so difficult to get one's head around. Many critics (including a fellow site sympathetic to Al Qaeda) have long suspected that the site is a CIA front designed to entrap curious visitors, something which Giesbrecht denies. Yet now, she is threatened with death by the very people whose story she sought to tell - and not for the release of political prisoners, but for $2 million ransom. The Taliban, reportedly, is suffering from the credit crunch like the rest of us.

So is Giesbrecht's capture a genuine and unfortunate turn of events, or a money-raising publicity stunt? It's one thing for the Taliban to behead a foreign (male) worker. It's quite another to kill a Muslim woman, especially one with a plausible and documented sympathy for the Taliban's activities. Giesbrecht complained of lack of progress by Canada or Pakistan towards her release in her videos, but for those aware of her sympathies, cooperation between Giesbrecht and the Taliban seems a little too plausible. Giesbrecht is no Margaret Hassan.

In all likelihood, the Taliban can't afford to bluff, having already crossed the beheading threshold with the Polish engineer (who Giesbrecht also refers to in her videos). Money is money and hostages are hostages. Giesbrecht now seems destined for an unusually ironic and cruel fate, one that establishes both the principles of the Taliban - and those like Giesbrecht who supported them - as woefully and tragically misguided. (2 comments)

The ongoing crisis in Gaza has brought to light the issue of terror and how it is used to promote a political goal. Central to the use of terror is the justification of who is a civilian. The question of who is one used to be one directed at Palestinian militants who justify the use of suicide bombs within Israel - with the rationale that all Israeli adults served in the Israeli army, which maintains the occupation of Palestinian land.

With the Gaza offensive, however, the Israelis are the ones grappling with the distinction between combatants and civilians, and all the ramifications that come with that. When an Israeli military spokesperson says that "anything affiliated with Hamas is a legitimate target," there is not much difference from the rationale that any Israeli adult is fair game for attack based on their "affiliation" with the Israeli army.

The commonly accepted definition of terrorism - to employ the use of violence against non-combatants to effect political change - certainly applies in either case, with the primary distinction now being the overwhelming disparity of casualties between them. Accepting the UN's estimate that 25% of the current 560 Palestinians killed are civilians, the 140 civlian deaths so far exceed the Israeli civilian deaths by Qassam rocket fire of 5 by a factor of 28. All things being equal - well, actually, they're not equal at all.

Israel knows that, with the window of opportunity offered by the impending transition in the American presidency, there is little pressure that will be brought to bear. It was once thought that Israel would use this time to launch a pre-emptive strike on Iran. But with the current offensive in some form having been planned for six months, we now know different.

The media also has a part to play in how these perceptions resonate in the public eye. In the first polls gauging the opinions of Americans on the Gaza crisis, a majority of Democrats (the ones who just elected our next President) oppose the Israeli offensive by a 24 point margin (Republicans veer the other direction). And yet Congress is almost universally in support of the Israeli viewpoint on the war, namely that it is in self defense and that all attempts are made to limit civilian casualties.

Hardly an official word is made about the humanitarian plight of the Gazan people, echoing an Israeli line that "there is no humanitarian crisis" (Israel will not allow foreign reporters into Gaza to verify the claim). Supplemental to this, Salon's Glenn Greenwald outlines the tribalism bolstering the Israeli view in a way we never could.

The lock on political power - power that could help restrain Israeli attacks and the ongoing blockade in Gaza - is cut somewhat in the back alleys of Washington, with promises of political support, and in the mainstream American media itself. But with such a wide disparity of opinion between Americans and their leaders, some credit has to be given to Americans using the media in ways that give them a more objective view of events in the region, either from foreign websites or the increasing array of satellite and Internet news broadcasts from the Arab world and beyond.

As the viewpoints of Americans and others solidifies, there is a real chance that pressure could increase on politicians to be more even-handed as supporters of Israel find it harder to place their views within the mainstream of American opinion. That will rely on increasing the efficacy and reach of alternative media, coupled with grassroots and netroots activism to connect those viewpoints to politicians themselves. We saw a taste of this in the Obama election - will it translate into real political change? We'll see after January 20th. (No comments)

A funny thing happened last week at the eighth annual convention of the Los Angeles-based Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC). The public policy group, which has been around for 20 years, invited some unconventional guests - Pastor Rick Warren of the Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, CA and grammy-award winning singer Melissa Etheridge. Warren was tapped as a headline speaker after many interfaith meetings with MPAC Senior Advisor Dr. Maher Hathout (and well before he was picked by President-elect Barack Obama to give the invocation at his inauguration on January 20, 2009. Etheridge had composed a song, "Ring the Bells," with former MPAC honoree Salman Ahmed, of the Pakistani rock group Junoon, which was to be performed that night and introduced by Dr. Deepak Chopra.

Upon hearing that Warren, who supported California's Proposition 8, was to speak, Etheridge became concerned about appearing at the event and considered cancelling. But in the spirit of MPAC inviting both a conservative evangelical Christian (Warren) and an openly lesbian singer (Etheridge), she contacted Warren beforehand, only to find out that he was a big fan of her music and downplayed some of his anti-gay rhetoric. Etheridge left defending Warren and praising MPAC (as Warren did) for being bridge-builders at a time of economic and social uncertainty. The turn of events was not lost on Professor Juan Cole, another panelist at the convention, who blogged on the "eclectic day."

Here, MPAC has provided a model for Muslim social interaction in the West, unafraid of defending its principles but always extending a hand to promote understanding of those perceived to be hostile (as well as those percieved to be recipients of Muslim hostility). Additionally, the impact of Dr. Hathout's efforts in helping create MPAC and as a guiding force for the Southern Californian Muslim community (and America at large) cannot be underestimated. A number of American Muslim leaders today (including Shahed and I, if you'd like to consider us) can trace their roots to the Islamic Center of Southern California, where Hathout found a way to inspire young people in ways few Muslim leaders have dared, symbolised in the success of the convention itself. The event was a perfect gesture for the holiday season (all of them). (No comments)

Looking for more out of your real world life? Finland's cleverly branded Muxlim, a network of English language social media sites, has launched a beta version of Muxlim Pal, a virtual world geared toward Muslims (and non-Muslims), similar to the popular interactive virtual world Second Life or The Sims computer games.

For those of you unfamiliar with virtual worlds (perhaps most of you under 30), these games allow you to adopt an online persona in the form of a customisable avatar in an interactive community with different meeting places, such as beaches, concert halls, and... erm, mosques. Muxlim Pal's Flash-based interface allows users to communicate with each other and perform a number of actions (walking, sitting, eating) that resemble everyday activities.

Muxlim Pal is in trial release only, meaning that functionality, graphics, and virtual space is limited, though a full version with expanded capabilities is expected next year as user input is incorporated. The site insists it is not religious, but rather aimed at promoting a "Muslim lifestyle," though there is obviously a link between the two. In the version online now, your avatar can stop what they're doing anywhere, roll out a prayer mat, and pray. Avatars can be customised to include Muslim aspects, such as dress, beards, and hijabs - though they can also wear western clothing and leave hair uncovered. Users have private rooms which they can embellish and invite others to (careful there, habibi).

Still, Muxlim's own market research shows that Muslims "have a lifestyle that is not so different from everybody else," so, clearly, a fine line is being drawn to keep Muxlim Pal appealing to Muslims yet inclusive of others without seeming contradictory. Ultimately, a "family-friendly" online experience is sought, a safe space for Muslims in the West who might feel excluded from the real world outside. Presumably, those who value such an environment will find much to like in the experience.

But as with anything related to Muslims, this may be a more challenging task than expected. Within 48 hours, the site was shut down temporarily (and new accounts suspended) when it was quickly taken over by "griefers", people who sign up to online games only to cause mischief (such as walking into rooms and screaming "Die, infidel!" and "Where my sand niggers at?" during our sample run). Part of the appeal of virtual worlds (as with being online in general) is the ability to do things one would not normally do, using anonymous personas. Not surprisingly, there is a strong pull towards taboos and anti-social behaviour. The Internet and collaborative gaming are awash with hurt feelings.

It is expected that future attempts at disruption will be handled by policing, though this approach struggles to work on other, less restrictive platforms. Unfortunately, having a meeting place for Muslims (or those sympathetic to them) will attract those looking for targets for their wrath. And as a business, closing access to new members or monitoring a sizeable community risks profitability. The site will depend on virtual money and advertising to enhance the user experience. If Muxlim pulls this off, they deserve enormous credit for providing an environment that many parents struggle to create for their kids' online activities.

But this challenge is not for the timid. The darker side of human nature online has yet to be overestimated. Art - and virtual worlds - will continue to imitate life, as always. (No comments)

If there was any doubt as to the depth and extent of anti-Muslim feelings among portions of the US electorate, this year's presidential elections have most certainly put it to rest. The extent to which candidates and voters alike propagated anti-Muslim themes in order to support a political agenda has been unprecedented. Nearly every major candidate relied on fear of Muslims at some point to stir voter sentiment through fear: Mitt Romney often railed against "radical Islam", Rudy Giuliani routinely invoked the spectre of "Islamic terror", Fred Thompson warned that the US is in a "global war with radical Islam", and John McCain called the fight against "radical Islamic extremists" the "transcendent challenge of the 21st century". Even Barack Obama, who was himself the target of anti-Muslim sentiments - tapped into this theme when he called upon Americans to wean themselves off of Middle Eastern (i.e. Muslim) oil.

Voters - many of whom I would guess couldn't tell the difference between an Islamist and the Muslim next door - responded to these overtures with one of the most sustained and organic email campaigns in recent memory. Repeated tales of Barack Obama's alleged Islamic past and/or present were so effective that in one Texas survey taken only a week before the election, 23% of all voters still believed that Obama was a Muslim. The level to which people clung to this meme despite two years of repeated statements in the media to the contrary is a startling reminder of how deep-seated the fear of Muslims remains.

It didn't stop there. One of the more ambitious attempts to stoke anti-Muslim feelings in order to sway the election was the mailing of 28 million copies of a DVD entitled "Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West" to households in swing states. Like the emails and statements above, the "Obsession" film blurs the lines between violent radicalism and ordinary Muslims, playing into legitimate fears that many Americans still have in the wake of 9/11.

But despite the extent and volume of anti-Muslim rhetoric, candidates who embraced these methods this year universally failed to get elected.

From the earliest days of the primary, campaigns seemed to falter in direct proportion to the extend politicians tried to make anti-Muslim feelings the foundation of their campaigns. Giuliani and Romney, by far the more strident of the Republican candidates, found no traction with the anti-Muslim arguments and dropped out early. In contrast, John McCain - who rejected Pastor Rod Parsley's endorsement solely due to his anti-Muslim comments and publicly stated that Muslim-Americans were qualified to hold any office in the land - rose to the top of his party.

There's another beneficial side effect that this rhetoric had: it galvanized Muslim-Americans to take control of their own political destiny. After all, if you're already a part of the elections (in an imaginary sense), why not dive in yourself and provide some Muslim reality?

While Muslim-American organizations took a low profile for fear of unwittingly contributing to the stigma, everyday Muslims took it upon themselves to get involved at a grassroots level, where they could stay under the radar and confront anti-Muslim feelings at a personal level. Buoyed by an affinity for Barack Obama, in part due to the slings and arrows that he took on their behalf, thousands of Muslim-Americans gravitated to his campaign and fought back through the political process. And Muslim Republicans, though smaller in number, worked from within the party to excise anti-Muslim sentiment, with some degree of success.

Will the next crop of presidential candidates learn from the lessons of 2008 and stick to more meaningful issues than who can be harder on Muslims? Only time will tell, but even if they don't, there will be a new generation of Muslim grassroots political activists in both parties waiting to confront them.

Cross-posted from Huffington Post and BeliefNet (1 comment)

Beside the recurring theme during the 2008 US Presidential election that Barack Obama was secretly a Muslim (or merely a terrorist sympathiser), everyone was on the lookout for an 11th hour message of support from Al Qaeda, similar to the one that arguably helped George Bush during his successful 2004 run only days before the election. It had already been floated by the John McCain camp that Hamas and Iran preferred Obama to McCain (because Muslims like each other, of course) and that Al Qaeda would be seen as no different. But to Obama's benefit, not a word was heard from the two chief Al Qaeda leaders, Osama bin Laden and Ayman Al-Zawahiri, before the election took place.

So did Zawahiri and Co. resort to some reverse psychology, perhaps noting how their endorsement of Bush in 2004 killed the campaign of the Iraq War opponent John Kerry? Considering the symbiotic relationship Al Qaeda has had with the Bush administration, that seems unlikely. The relative absense of commentary from Zawahiri during the campaign probably indicated some confusion on what Obama really represented (a key McCain-Palin allegation, of course). But now that one of Al Qaeda's chief arguments has been neutralised with Obama's election - America's alleged antipathy towards non-whites - Zawahiri has responded with some race-baiting of his own, calling Obama a "house negro," unlike the honourable Al Hajj Malik Al-Shabazz (that's Malcolm X to you).

For the many non-Arab Muslims who have noticed the Al Qaeda leadership as being near Arab supremacist, this is a bit much (not to mention the widespread third-world joy at seeing a person of colour take over the "White" House). Malcolm could at least get away with such a description of subservient blacks (which he later rescinded, by the way) because he shared their race. For the Arab-dominated Al Qaeda to play this card speaks of their ever-growing irrelevance and the potential ascendancy of a "third way" that neither whitewashes Western imperialism (don't screw this up, Barack) or resorts to the violence, polarisation, and authoritarianism inherent in Al Qaeda itself.

The bilateral neocon-Al Qaeda alliance is ending. Savour it. (No comments)

Not wasting any time, President-elect Obama made his first staff pick with Illinois congressman and former Clinton (Bill) advisor Rahm Emanuel. Emanuel has earned a reputation as a hyper-partisan attack dog, which seems to us appropriate at first glance if Obama is looking for a Democratic Karl Rove.

But other aspects of his political background are giving Muslims pause. Emanuel is the son of Israeli immigrants and served as a citizen volunteer in the Israeli army during the first Gulf War in 1991 (not that Israel was part of that). Although he toes the line on most Democratic policy positions, he is less committed on two items sensitive to Muslims - the Iraq War (he is more hesitant to withdraw) and immigration (cooperating with anti-immigrant congressmen like Republican Tom Tancredo).

So what affect will this have as Obama's chief of staff? If we want to give Obama the benefit of the doubt, Emanuel is well served for the primary responsibilties of his position - managing and protecting Obama's inner circle with an iron fist. To the extent that he will influence Obama adversely on the Israel/Palestine question, it bears reminding that Obama's friendship with Palestinian professor Rashid Khalidi came to light when he attended a dinner in Khalidi's honor - right in the middle of his campaign.

Emanuel's relationship with Obama is too long lasting (and Emanuel too qualified) to consider his appointment a reaction to the Khalidi story. Nevertheless, Obama has referred to Khalidi as someone who challenges his "own biases." Will Emanuel reinforce them, or will Obama be strategic enough to find a practical middle ground? (No comments)

By now, many of you have heard General Colin Powell's recounting of the sacrifice that Muslim-American soldier Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan made for the country of his birth, and how a photo of Khan's mother draped over her son's tombstone at Arlington Cemetery moved him to speak out against the demonization of Muslim-Americans among some in the Republican party.

For many Americans, this may have been the first time they've heard of a Muslim-American soldier dying in the battlefield. But the truth is that Muslims have had a long history of serving in the US armed forces. And according to the American Muslim Armed Forces and Veterans Affairs Council, there are currently 20,000 Muslims serving with honor in the US military.

Wander through Arlington Cemetery, as I've done, and you'll see the crescents among the crosses, adorning graves of soldiers like Army Captain Humayun Khan, who lured a suicide car bomb away from the men in his charge, saving their lives but giving up his own, Army Spc. Rasheed Sahib, an American Muslim from Guyana, Army Spc. Omead Razani, a son of Iranian immigrants, Marine Staff Sgt. Kendall Damon Waters-Bey, who was killed in a helicopter crash, and sadly many more.

In fact, you'll find the graves of fallen Muslim soldiers and Muslim veterans in military cemeteries all over the United States, from Hassein Ahmed (Army, WWII) to Ibrahim Muhammad (Navy, WWII), from Mahir Hasan (Army, Korea) to Abul Fateh Umar Khan (Air Force, Korea).

This is part of the history and reality of Muslims in this country, and it flies in the face of some McCain supporters (though thankfully not all) who warn of Muslims gaining undue influence and stature under an Obama administration. The fact that up to 10% of voters still believe that Barack Obama is a Muslim (despite the Rev. Wright debacle and over a year of clarifications in the media) or "an Arab" underscores just how embedded the idea is that Muslims are still alien to all that America stands for.

It also flies in the face of McCain's own words. "I'm proud of the Muslims who are currently serving in the United States armed forces," he said when asked about the possibility of having a Muslim cabinet member, "and my sense is that if they can serve in that manner, they can serve in any position of responsibility in America."

Perhaps the now-famous photo of Corporal Khan's mother can help soften some hearts on the other side of the political fence. I wonder, though, how many dead Muslim solidiers it will take for them to realize that loyalty to country is the norm among Muslim-Americans, and not the exception.

(Cross-posted from Beliefnet's "Progressive Revival" blog)
(1 comment)

Seventeen Uighurs, from the Muslim ethnic group common to Western China, have been held in captivity in Guantanamo Bay since being detained in Pakistan in 2004. Though they were originally identified as “illegal enemy combatants,” the Bush administration later admitted they were no threat to the US.

A subsequent federal ruling recently ordered them freed - not back to China (where they would likely be mistreated by authorities), but within the US itself, under the care of Uighur families around Washington DC. Fearing the unprecedented media access, along with the glaring irony of Guantanamo detainees walking the streets of America, the administration is trying desperately to send the detainees to a country that has relations with Taiwan (and therefore is not afraid of offending China).

The list includes Burkina Faso, Belize, Nauru, Palau, Tuvalu and the Marshall Islands. Interestingly, all share much with Guantanamo Bay - beautiful weather, but extreme ethnic and geographic isolation. Tuvalu is sinking and the Marshall Islands are atolls only meters wide (trust me, I've been there). Without stronger legal intervention, they could be in for more trouble in paradise. (No comments)

One of the new features we are planning to unveil in the very near future is a new gender-focused online newsmagazine, created in partnership with some of the nation's leading Muslim American women activists. In preparation for the site's launch, we're looking for submissions of articles and commentary, along the lines of altmuslim's existing style guide. If you looking to write about current events from a Muslim woman's perspective, or have commentary you think would help make the new site a dynamic new addition to the Muslim blogosphere, please email your submissions to gender(at)altmuslim.com.

Here are some suggested topics for discussion:

1 - Why do women choose to stop wearing the hijab? Seeking personal stories.
2 - Why did most Muslim women support Obama over Clinton?
3 - How do you think classical Islamic texts portray a man's ability to control his own lust? Do you agree with this portrayal? How does it affect the way you perceive yourself, as a modern Muslim man?
4 - How have gender dynamics among Western Muslims changed in the post 9/11 era?

Comments, questions, and suggestions are welcome as well. (1 comment)

If you listened closely during the various speeches at the RNC convention, you'll notice that the times when the crowd was most animated was when Republican rage was focused on what Sen. John McCain calls the "trancendent challenge of our time: the threat of radical Islamic terorrism". Various speakers through the convention returned to this theme, which consistently galvanized the crowd. "John McCain hit the nail on the head," thundered former Gov. Mitt Romney. "Radical violent Islam is evil, and he will defeat it." Rejecting calls to avoid using the term "Islamic terrorism" for fear of fomenting hostility towards Muslims, former NY mayor Rudy Giuliani was defiant. "Please tell me who they are insulting when they say Islamic terrorism," he said. "They are insulting terrorists."

(Note to Mr. Giuliani: Terrorists who are Muslim love being called "Islamic". It gives them legitimacy. "Terrorist" they don't like so much, because they think they are freedom fighters. You'd think this would be obvious.)

I don't have a problem with fighting radicals who manipulate Islam for violent ends. What I do have a problem with is that these Republican leaders, and the crowd they lather up, have such a vague defintion of "radical Islam" that it demonizes millions of law-abiding Muslim Americans in the eyes of their fellow citizens, few of whom could tell the difference between a radical Muslim and a peaceful one.

I have a Muslim friend who has been a Republican for 30 years (surprisingly enough, there are an embattled few Muslim Republicans) who emailed the McCain campaign to get some clarification on exactly what they define as "radical Islam". To sum up the long answer that came back: there are up to 100 million radical Islamists in the world who are determined to kill us, and the US needs to resolutely defeat them. No word on how to tell the radicals from the moderates, or if there is any solution other than a military one. Just a recipe for open-ended war against an undefined enemy.

You might think, "Well, this is all for the cameras, and they're just venting." But the crowd at the RNC (unfortunately) holds a significant amount of political power in this country. Reinforcing the theme of Islam being the enemy will seep in at the convention and emerge later in the form of discriminatory surveillance, lopsided laws that treat Muslims as guilty until proven innocent, and and increased desire to bomb the hell out of any Muslim country that doesn't toe the US line.

To tell you the truth, I don't feel personally threatened. In my experience, this country has far more reasonable people in it than the crowd chanting "USA! USA!" with anger in their eyes during Romney's speech. In the wake of 9/11, far more Americans offered comfort to the Muslims I know than offered insults. (No prize for guessing the political orientation of those two groups of people.) But I am upset that politicians feel they need to resort to declarations of war to get themselves elected, and saddened that they are oblivious to the very real damage the cause to decent American citizens who work hard, pay their taxes, and don't deserve to be lumped into the same category as those who perpetrated 9/11.

(Cross-posted from Beliefnet's "Progressive Revival" blog) (No comments)

If you want to understand just how difficult it can be for Muslims to participate in public service, look no further than my friend Mazen Asbahi. An accomplished attorney and long-time Democratic volunteer, he took on the position of Sen. Obama's national coordinator for Muslim and Arab affairs last week. Unfortunately, he resigned yesterday out of fear that his appointment would be a distraction to the campaign.

The source of his worry? The fact that he had served on a board of directors, for a few weeks, with an imam considered by some to be an extremist, as well as his being an officer of the Muslim Students Association while he was in college. Mazen himself was not accused of being an extremist, or even of supporting extremist groups and/or causes. Yet this was enough to ensure his quick departure from the campaign, after only a week of work.

Think about this for a moment. No reasonable person would link the reputation or activities of one board member to another, especially (as was the case with Mazen) when you had no say in the nomination or election of that other board member. And being an officer in a Muslim student group - nearly all of which operate independently of the national MSA - is only a liability if that particular student group is accused of wrongdoing, which Mazen's MSA wasn't.

Mazen is a loyal Democrat who has worked tirelessly to help mobilize millions of Muslim and Arab votes this coming November, and he has by all accounts a stellar professional reputation. But two very tenuous "links" - if you want to call them that - were enough to erase an entire adult lifetime of achievement and cast an unfair suspicion over him that will follow him through the rest of his life (thank you, Google).

When I spoke to him last week, he was excited about the possibility of bringing more Muslims and Arabs into the political system, to prove that our communities can be a net positive contributor to the societies in which we live. I cannot imagine another qualified Muslim daring to follow in his footsteps, only to be subjected to second/third/fourth-degree of separation accusations and (as we like to say in political circles) "be thrown under the bus".

The very people who fight to push Muslims out of the public square are also the ones clamoring for our communities to get out in the streets and prove our loyalty to the US. If only they could see the contradiction for themselves.

(Cross-posted from Beliefnet's "Progressive Revival" blog) (1 comment)

One of the goals of altmuslim.com has been to create a discourse that carries as well with Muslim audiences as with those who are not Muslim. So it can be challenging to bring some of the weightier topics we discuss to mainstream conferences. For the last two years, we've been lucky enough to be asked to give presentations related to our work at South by Southwest (SXSW) Interactive, the web-focused third (along with film and music) of one of the largest cultural events in the USA. This year, we attracted a large audience with a provocative title - Online Extremism - And The Muslims Who Fight It - where we featured Muslims working both to combat the spread of violent ideologies online as well as creating spaces for open dialogue and understanding among/with Muslims online.

The panel featured security expert Mohammad Hluchan (a security expert and translator - he knows seven languages - who works to identify and shut down websites of violent extremists), Mohammad Suleiman Khan (webmaster for Islamica Magazine and founder of the online blogging community Hadithuna, which focuses on providing a platform for a wide variety of Muslim viewpoints), Frank Cilluffo (a Homeland Security expert from George Washington University who promotes a refreshing change in policy from the "with us or against us" mentality of a few years ago), and Shaarik Zafar (a senior policy advisor and the Department of Homeland Security who has been active in both protecting the civil and free speech rights of Muslims as well as enabling ordinary Muslims to become more active in combatting violent ideologies). Even though our panel was scheduled the same time as one of the many interesting keynote speeches at SXSW, it was still one of the larger programs of the conference.

The event was widely covered by livebloggers (an "amazing session"... "forward thinking"... "timely and important"... "interesting and relevant"), newspapers, radio, and more. Next week, the national Canadian TV show The Agenda will recreate our panel discussion for TV.

Inshallah, we'll continue to work with SXSW and other conferences to bridge the gaps of understanding between Muslims and others. If you have suggestions for other thought-provoking programs to organize, please contact us. (6 comments)

What happens when you get 200 academics, activists, policy wonks, politicians, and journalists - all with opinions across the spectrum - into a room to try to determine the best course of action to improve the relationship between the US and the Muslim world? Well, it's happened at this year's fifth annual US-Islamic World Forum, and the answer is: unfortunately, not much. But you sure have a good time doing it.

For those who are unfamiliar with the US-Islamic World Forum, hosted by the Washington-DC based think tank Brookings each year in Doha, Qatar, it has been described as a "Davos of the Muslim world" designed to promote understanding and address conflicts. The forum is invite-only, and it helps if you are already in one or more circles that have found favor with forum organizers. Once selected, no expense is spared (thank you Governent of Qatar) to whisk you to Doha in first-class comfort. An eclectic group of stakeholders, observers, and even proponents of the divide between the US and the Muslim then find themselves in the Doha Ritz-Carlton passionately sharing their thoughts. It's a bit surreal to see figures as diverse as Egyptian televangelist Amr Khaled, Afghan president Hamid Karzai, and CENTCOM commander William Fallon all plying the same room, but hearing perspectives straight from the mouths of those responsible for policy and front page headlines gives things a whole new perspective.

But do viewpoints end up being any more nuanced after a free exchange of views? Not according to one repeat attendee, who likened the event to the movie "Groundhog Day" - each year, the conversation begins again as if the last one never happened. The activists (seeing themselves as proxy stand-ins for the Muslim masses) still feel ignored by those with actual policymaking power, and the neocons continue to hold on to their black-and-white worldview while sipping tea on the shores of the Persian Gulf. It was particularly difficult for me to hear one pundit push the idea that it is still an option to impose democracy militarily (after all, it worked in Germany and Japan, right?) while sitting a short flight away from the most compelling argument against it.

There is another, more valuable point to this conference, however - it's a great way to create networks with like-minded people from a plethora of backgrounds and experiences. Most meaningful for me was spending quality time with a group of committed Western Muslim leaders, activists, and academics who I've worked with and have come to respect over the years - people like Hisham Hellyer (former Brookings), Sherman Jackson (U of Michigan), Ahmed Younis (former MPAC), Salam al-Marayati (current MPAC), Rokhsana Fiaz (Change Institute UK), Dalia Mogahed (Gallup), Awais Sufi (NAML), and Salahuddin Khan (Islamica Magazine), among others. (No comments)

Back in 1988, at the Islamic Center of Southern California (the mosque I had attended since I was a child), Jesse Jackson, a presidential candidate in that year's election, made a campaign stop and speech at the mosque that was well attended by Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Whatever you may think of Jackson, it was the first time that Muslims had been courted so visibly in a presidential race by a well-known candidate. From that point on was a sense that there was a space for Muslims, as American citizens who cared about the future of their country, to make themselves heard. It had a long lasting effect on me and many of my colleagues.

Twenty years later, issues concerning Muslims feature prominently in campaigns - though mostly in a negative light. The suspicion of Muslims in the US and elsewhere is so high that Democratic candidate Barack Obama is spending much of his energy denying he is one, regardless of the insinuations that are attached to it. Still, Muslims today have become much more involved in the political system, in all parties and at all levels. The result is a savvy Muslim electorate that takes voting seriously and contributes to campaigns that help achieve common goals with other Americans. Educating ourselves and others is one of those goals.

Today, we're launching a special section devoted to the 2008 US presidential race, a section that will provide in-depth information on the (remaining) candidates for president, where they stand on issues of concern to Muslims, and opinions and features by prominent Muslim Americans. It will also either horrify you or impress you to know that we also have a network of individuals involved with a number of the major campaigns and government agencies who are providing us with insider information on how Muslims are making a constructive difference in the political system.

Click here to view descriptions of the candidates in more detail and what Muslims are saying about them. And if you have something to add, please let us know! (1 comment)

For all its importance to Muslims, the Qur'an has not been methodically explained to a wide non-Muslim audience. Considering the cherry picking done by non-Muslims and Muslims alike, an objective public reading doesn't sound like a bad idea. The online magazine Slate ran a blog series by Jewish columnist David Plotz covering the Bible that was largely successful (if uncontroversial) due to the genuine sense of introspection and a reasonably objective approach.

It is perhaps that sense that Muslim writer and "cultural critic" Ziauddin Sardar hopes to provide as he begins "blogging the Qur'an" on a weekly basis in Britain's Guardian newspaper and website. Before people think that the blog series will be a fawning exercise in hyperbole, Sardar is well known for his "scepticism" as outlined in a range of books including the wonderful Desperately Seeking Paradise. It is the kind of approach that promises to be influential to the people who need it most - Muslims who interpret the Qur'an in a way that exacerbates the clash with modernity and non-Muslims who do the same. Both groups are sympathetic enough to Sardar - to his humility and to his constructive critique - to grant him a willing ear.

It should be noted that Sardar has been beaten to the punch by Islam critic Robert Spencer, who started blogging the Qur'an on a weekly basis in May of last year. Looking at his latest entry, you'll find a surprisingly sedate description of the selected verses scattered with varying degrees of misinterpretation (it's not "up to Allah who believes and who doesn’t," Robert... it's that humans have been given free will to choose their destiny). Still, the idea of explaining the Qur'an in depth to an audience that is already predisposed to despise it is not a very efficient use of influence.

Interestingly, the public commentary will be limited to selected e-mails and responses from Sardar rather than the mudslinging comment threads found on Islam-related blog entries on the Guardian's Comment is Free website. Those (on both sides) who relish the sport of verbal jousting will have to resort to substance, honesty, and patience in their interactions. Letters to the editor in the Internet age? Doesn't sound like a bad idea.

[Zia Sardar is speaking on a panel discussion this Friday at the City Circle in London this Friday on the Pakistan crisis.] (3 comments)

Three days have passed since the assassination of Benazir Bhutto on December 27th, 2007. It is now the last few days of the year and the future of Pakistan seems increasingly in disarray. Shops and markets are still closed across the country. According to news reports, approximately 40 people have died in the ensuing violence, and over 500 cars, 22 trains, 40 banks and various Government offices have been burnt down by unruly mobs. Today is supposed to be the third and final day of the three days of mourning announced by the Government.

In terms of daily life, people across the country and especially here in Karachi are facing a tough time. Owing to the shut down of petrol pumps, most transportation is off the streets. Yesterday evening, there were long lines at the petrol pumps where people were hoping that they might come by some petrol for their cars and motorbikes. In typical Karachi fashion, people having been cooped up in their homes for several days, joking around and exchanging conspiracy theories as they waited for the odd chance that the stations may begin selling fuel. For most, there was no such luck. Families are also facing food shortages since shops have either been closed or have not had their stores replenished since Thursday. It is especially difficult to come across staples like flour, eggs, milk and butter. Since it was the height of wedding season in Pakistan, many weddings have been cancelled and postponed owing to Bhutto's death.

Politically, today is supposed to be a crucial day. Yesterday Dawn News TV aired footage of the supposed shooter who shot and killed Benazir, poking a hole in the Government's theory that Bhutto died of injuries to her head caused by a skull fracture from hitting her head against the lever of her sunroof. The video footage as well as pictures showed a clean cut gunman pointing and shooting a gun at the leader, while the suicide bomber, his face covered by a cloth, waits nearby. It is unlikely that the exact cause of death will ever be determined, but theories abound regarding who was responsible in orchestrating the attack. Today, the leader of Tehrik-e-Taliban in Pakistan, Baitullah Mehsud, issued a statement saying that the Government is wrongly pinning blame on him and that the Taliban were not involved in the killing since "tribal customs prevent him from targeting a woman."

Benazir's last will will be read today by her son Bilawal Bhutto at a meeting of the Pakistan People's Party's Senior Executive Council at Bhutto House in Larkana. It is expected that after the meeting, clearer signals will emerge regarding who will take over the reigns of the Party and whether the PPP will contest upcoming elections, if they are indeed held.

As I sit here writing this update, things continue to remain eerily quiet in Karachi. Seven people were killed in the city yesterday in Lyari, which is a PPP stronghold. It is expected that a formal curfew will be imposed in that area if the violence continues. The Pakistan Army has been deployed in most parts of the city with "shoot at sight" orders for anyone causing any trouble. However, news crews from various parts of the city continue to report incidents of violence in areas off the city's main arteries where fewer Army and police personnel can be found. Since Karachi is an MQM stronghold, many forecast that things will return to normal tomorrow once official mourning comes to an end. Whether this forecast is indeed true remains to be seen in the coming days. (No comments)

Benazir Bhutto was buried yesterday in her home village of Naushero Feroze but the situation here in Karachi continues to remain tense. There is something quite eerie and chilling when a city of 16 million which stays alive late into the night comes to a standstill.

The fallout from the assassination of Benazir Bhutto has been terrible. On Thursday, the news of her death spread like wildfire and many people were stranded at work since the roads were so badly jammed with traffic. Many had to abandon their cars on the side of the road and walk to their destinations and other had to abandon them because they ran out of petrol since pumps had been ordered shut for fear of arson as soon as news of the death was announced. The unfortunate result of this was that many cars that were parked on the side of the roads were burned by the street mobs that took to the roads soon after.

In terms of political fallout, the situation seems extremely uncertain. In the immediate aftermath of the death of Benazir, the leadership of the Pakistan People’s Party issued a statement saying that they were in a state of shock and could not comment on whether they would be contesting the upcoming elections. Former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, who incidentally was also shot at during a rally, that same day issued a statement saying that his party would be boycotting elections. Not only is it unclear whether elections will be held on January 8, 2008, but it still cannot be said whether the major political parties will be contesting them. What is clear is that all election campaigning in the country has come to a complete halt in light of the events following Bhutto’s death.

It is strange to be in Karachi at the death of Benazir Bhutto. I am too young remember the aftermath of when her father, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, was hung by General Zia ul Haque in 1979, but I have been in Karachi during periods of extreme violence. The atmosphere in the city is markedly different from these past violent episodes since the shut down is complete and the fear palpable. Looking down at the city from our roof terrace yesterday evening, one could see plumes of smoke rising from fires. According to news reports, fire crews (which can supposedly be reached by calling 16) can not be reached and are simply not responding to fires. At least three to four banks have been reported looted and over 100 cars burned in the city. All transport, including trains and flights out of the city, had been cancelled since the flight crews were unable to reach the airport. Because the petrol pumps continue to remain shut, people are unable to buy fuel and black marketeers are supposedly selling Iranian petrol for 100 rupees a liter (it usually sells for 50 rupees a liter)

Tomorrow, Benazir’s soyem (the traditional religious services held three days after the burial) will be held all over the country, and it is expected that more violence will take place across the city then. Some reports from the Pakistan People’s Party asserted that the Party will not participate in any political activities for the next forty days which led people to conclude that they too intend to boycott the upcoming polls. However, no definitive reports have emerged in this regard.
(1 comment)