By Faisal Kutty

May/Jun 25

At 6:15 a.m. on March 19, 2025, United States federal immigration agents in tactical gear descended on a quiet residential street in Northern Virginia. Their target: Badar Khan Suri, a Georgetown University scholar, a legal U.S. resident, and an outspoken critic of U.S. policy in the Middle East. Without a warrant or criminal charges, they arrested him outside his home. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) justified this action with documents obtained by his lawyer that referenced his alleged “pattern of anti-American sentiment” and “pro-Palestinian advocacy.”

Within hours, Suri, who was transferred to a federal detention facility in Texas, is now in Louisiana. No formal charges have been filed. No court date has been set. His whereabouts were kept from his family and legal team for nearly 48 hours.

Suri’s case is part of a disturbing trend that has escalated since the new administration took office. The administration has launched a sweeping crackdown on political dissent through immigration enforcement – targeting not just undocumented migrants, but legal residents, academics, tourists, and even dual nationals – and it is doing so by twisting immigration law into a blunt instrument of repression.

A Brown University Assistant Professor and Lebanese-born physician Dr. Rasha Alawieh, a U.S. visa holder, was deported to Lebanon in mid-March 2025 despite an order from a federal judge halting her removal. U.S. officials cited her attendance at a public funeral for slain Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah as grounds for deportation after finding photos on her phone. Alawieh, a transplant nephrologist serving vulnerable patients, completed extensive training at Yale, the University of Washington, and Ohio State. Although she had no criminal record, officials claimed her presence posed a foreign policy risk. Her case highlights a disturbing shift: ideological affiliations or perceived sympathies, rather than criminal conduct, are being used as a basis for exclusion and deportation from the U.S.

The revival of Section 237(a)(4)(C)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act has been central to this crackdown. Originally passed during the Cold War (1947-91), the statute allows for the deportation of legal residents if the Secretary of State believes their presence may cause “potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences.” In effect, it allows for the deportation of individuals based on political speech, even if that speech is protected under the First Amendment.

In the second Trump Administration, this act has become a cornerstone of the president’s arch-conservative domestic agenda. 

The highest profile case in which the Immigration and Nationality Act has been levied remains that of Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University graduate student and permanent U.S. resident. On March 8, he was detained by ICE agents after an Iftar dinner. Hours later, his green card was revoked, and he was forcibly transferred from New Jersey to Louisiana. No charges. No hearing. Just the disappearance of an undesirable ordered by the state. A judge has temporarily blocked his deportation and moved the case back to New Jersey as the court decides the merits of the government’s position.

His alleged crime? Organizing a peaceful student encampment in support of Palestinian rights.

The administration’s dragnet has swept up many more, such as Rumeysa Ozturk, a Turkish Fulbright scholar and Tufts University. Ozturk, a doctoral student, was snatched in broad daylight by masked federal agents and flown 1,500 miles away to a detention facility in Louisiana because she co-authored an academic op-ed in March 2024 in support of the Boycott Divest and Sanctions movement. 

New York resident Yunseo Chung, a South Korean-born Columbia University student and permanent U.S. resident, narrowly avoided arrest after ICE attempted to detain her. A federal judge blocked her deportation and sharply criticized the government’s claim that her peaceful protest activities constituted a “foreign policy risk.” Alireza Doroudi, an Iranian PhD candidate in engineering at the University of Alabama, was quietly taken into custody with no criminal charges and remains in detention at the time of this writing despite no link to any activism being publicly presented against him. 

Even those outside the U.S. borders are not safe. Ranjani Srinivasan, an Indian PhD student at Columbia, fled to Canada after learning she had been flagged by U.S. authorities. Her visa was revoked, ICE agents visited her home, and the DHS later posted footage of her at the airport while branding her a “terrorist sympathizer.” Leqaa Kordia, a Syrian American dual citizen and Columbia University medical researcher, was denied reentry after a family trip abroad. She had posted online condemning Israel’s military actions in Gaza. 

In California, two German tourists were detained separately in San Diego and Tijuana, placed in solitary confinement, and subsequently deported after officers reviewed their digital devices and found pro-Palestinian posts on them. A French physicist traveling to Los Alamos National Lab for a research project was denied entry due to private messages criticizing Trump’s climate policy.

Jasmine Mooney, a Canadian actress and entrepreneur was detained and shackled by U.S. border agents over a paperwork discrepancy related to her visa. Despite holding valid documents and having no criminal record, she was held for two weeks, placed in chains, and ultimately barred from entering the U.S. for five years. “It felt like I had been kidnapped,” she told The Guardian.

In each case, no laws were broken. Those detained were not criminals or security threats. They were travelers, students, and scholars whose views clashed with the current administration’s ideological agenda.

What we are witnessing is not immigration enforcement. It is an ideological cleansing of America.

As The New York Times and The Guardian documented, border agents and ICE officials are now empowered to use artificial intelligence, facial recognition, and social media monitoring to flag individuals who express dissenting political views. In many cases, private groups like Canary Mission and Betar, a militant, right-wing, Zionist organization, are feeding names and digital dossiers to the DHS. Betar reportedly used facial recognition to identify international students protesting Israeli policies on campus and lobbied for their deportation.

Students and faculty at Columbia, Harvard, and Stanford reported unannounced visits from federal agents or unexplained blocks on their visas. Some learned later that their names had been flagged by university trustees or external watchdog groups tracking “anti-Israel extremism.”

The legal architecture enabling this crackdown rests on vague statutes and court deference to executive authority, especially in immigration. The administration has taken full advantage of this deference by shipping cases to conservative jurisdictions like Louisiana’s Fifth Circuit Court, using sealed orders, applying rapid transfers, and issuing retroactive visa revocations to bypass due process.

In Ragbir v. Homan (2d Cir. 2018), the court held that retaliatory deportation for protected speech is unconstitutional. Khalil’s lawyers have invoked this precedent. But in conservative circuits, judges are increasingly treating immigration as an exception to constitutional protections.

The U.S. presents itself as a nation governed by the rule of law, a place where rights are protected, free speech is sacred, and justice applies to all. But when immigration law is carved out as an exception, when it becomes a lawless zone where speech is criminalized and due process is ignored, that foundation begins to crack. If the government can detain, silence, and expel individuals based not on what they’ve done, but based on what they believe or say, then no one is truly safe – not immigrants, not citizens, not even those born on American soil. A democracy that makes dissent deportable does not just fail immigrants. It fails itself.

This assault on dissent echoes earlier moments in American history. The Enemy Aliens Act, still on the books, was once used to intern Japanese Americans and surveil Germans during World War II. Today, it underpins the logic of guilt by association: if you speak out on behalf of a disenfranchised group, your rights are conditional.

The second Trump Administration has also embraced blacklist tactics, much like those of the McCarthy era of the 1950s. Canary Mission and Betar maintain dossiers on students and professors who they consider to be critical of Israel. Those named often find themselves denied entry to the U.S., blocked from employment, or targeted by coordinated harassment campaigns.

Even Jewish activists can become targets. As University of Haifa professor Itamar Mann and Columbia University professor Lihi Yona argue in Defending Jews from the Definition of Antisemitism, the conflation of anti-Zionism with antisemitism has created a legal and rhetorical tool to punish both Palestinians and dissenting Jewish allies.

Maura Finkelstein, reportedly the first tenured professor dismissed over her anti-Zionist views by Muhlenberg College, said, “I wasn’t fired for hate speech. I was fired for my political opinions. For being anti-Zionist. For being vocal. For being a Jew who rejects Zionism.”

The consequences of this crackdown are far-reaching. It is reshaping the meaning of U.S. residency, border policy, and academic freedom.

According to the Center for American Progress, the administration’s enforcement strategy has diverted thousands of law enforcement personnel away from investigating violent crimes and public safety threats to instead focus on detaining students, tourists, and researchers for critical speech.

This isn’t about protecting Americans. It’s about making examples of those who dare to speak up.

If Americans allow the government to strip visas and green cards for expressing unpopular ideas, they legitimize a system where speech becomes a privilege, not a right and where political views determine one’s legal existence.

We’ve seen this before. In McCarthy’s America during the so-called Red Scare, the government came after communists. In Nixon’s America, it was civil rights leaders and the anti-war left. Today, it’s Palestinians, their allies, and all those critical of Trump’s embrace of state fascism.

Once they are all out of the way, who will the government come for next?

Faisal Kutty is a lawyer, law professor, and affiliate faculty member at the Rutgers University Center for Security, Race, and Rights. You can follow him on X @faisalkutty.

Want more like this? Subscribe to the Islamic Horizons magazine and support authentic journalism by Muslims for Muslims.

The post Deporting Dissent: Weaponizing the U.S. Immigration System appeared first on Islamic Horizons.

By Lisa Kahler

May/Jun 25

Over $1.8 billion in zakat was given in 2022 by Muslim Americans according to the Muslim American Zakat Report 2023, published by  the Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy in Indianapolis.

For Muslims, zakat is more than just obligatory alms. It is one of Islam’s 5  pillars and includes a wide range of charitable behaviors that go beyond the “Five T’s” of philanthropy (time, talent, treasure, testimony, and ties). Zakat  also includes simple acts such as smiling, picking up a piece of trash, and lending a helping hand. 

Philanthropy is an integral part of the Muslim American community and is rooted in the Islamic principles of zakat (obligatory charity) and sadaqa (voluntary giving). 

Evolving Philanthropy in the Muslim American Community

There are an estimated 3.45 million Muslims in the United States today  (“Muslim Zakat Report 2023 & the US Muslim Women’s Philanthropy Report”). Many have shifted their charitable giving from primarily international causes to more strategic, local, and institutionalized philanthropy. As Muslims have become more integrated into American society, their philanthropy has gained recognition from mainstream institutions like the Association of Fundraising Professionals (AFP) and the aforementioned Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy.

Within their community, Muslims have worked to develop centralized philanthropic structures such as the American Muslim Community Foundation (AMCF) to develop their own public narrative with programs such as the  “Inspired Generosity” traveling exhibit. Muslim women are leading the landscape of charitable giving, leveraging not only financial resources but also time, expertise, networks and advocacy to create a lasting impact.

Muslim Americans & National Philanthropy Day

Shazeen Mufti, a strategic nonprofit consultant actively involved in nonprofit and philanthropic sectors, has observed a significant transformation in American Muslim giving over the past 25 years. When she first started in philanthropy, she noticed that the majority of Muslims sent more money back to their home countries than to local projects. Today, she feels that Muslim donors have become more strategic, aligning their giving with personal interests and local needs. The Muslim Zakat Report 2022 identifies  this shift as well, noting that 25.3% of zakat was allocated to international NGOs, 21.7% to national governments, and 18.3% to domestic nonprofits.

Mufti has been instrumental in increasing Muslim representation within the Association of Fundraising Professionals (AFP) and was chair of AFP Orange County’s National Philanthropy Day (NPD) in 2024. Under her leadership, the event became more accessible to Muslims, culminating in Mohannad and Rana Malas, well-known Muslim donors in Southern California, each receiving the Outstanding Philanthropist of the Year award. In his acceptance speech at AFP Orange County’s NPD Nominee Dinner, Malas highlighted the impact of his Palestinian heritage, the Nakbah, and Islamic principles on his family’s practice of giving. As influential donors and advocates, the Malas family’s contributions serve as an inspiration, reinforcing the growing presence of American Muslim philanthropists in mainstream giving circles.

“Bring the community to the table with you wherever you are. Understand your community’s needs and advocate for them,” Mufti told Islamic Horizons.

Inspired Generosity: Honoring Impactful Giving

The Inspired Generosity (IG) traveling exhibit, organized by the Waraich Family Fund (WF Fund), celebrates the stories of Muslim American philanthropy. The multimedia story-telling exhibit debuted in Atlanta in 2024 featuring over 50 submissions chosen from 200 videos, photos, poems, and digital and audio stories submitted from across the country. According to their website, IG provides a “national stage for powerful stories of generosity from the Muslim American community – spotlighting tales of spirituality driven good works.” This initiative recognizes and celebrates contributions to social justice, education, and humanitarian causes by everyday Muslims from across America. 

Dilnaz Waraich, the WF Fund president, hopes this initiative will drive an “ecosystem change” in philanthropy leading to inclusion of Muslim-led nonprofits. She said funders have stereotypes of Muslims that have to be overcome before Muslim Americans can even be “in the room” with other major philanthropic organizations. 

Research on Muslim Philanthropy

A lack of research on Muslim American giving has hindered the inclusion of Muslim philanthropy in institutional dialogue. Much of the giving occurs outside traditional reporting structures and thus remains invisible in national philanthropic narratives. Addressing this gap, the Muslim Philanthropy Initiative was founded in 2017 at the Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy to convene, train, and empower a new generation of Muslim philanthropic leaders. 

Research fellow and doctoral candidate Nausheena Hussain, researches the role of women in Muslim philanthropy. In her recent book, Prosperity  with Purpose: A Muslim Women’s Guide to Abundance & Generosity (Rabata’s Daybreak Press, 2025) she stated, “We give generously of our time, talents, and networks, yet these contributions are often overlooked.” 

Hussain was the lead author of the U.S. Muslim Women’s Philanthropy Report 2023 which identifies key motivations for giving by Muslim women: compassion, belief in making a difference, and faith. The report highlights volunteerism as part of giving, with 68.8% of Muslim women volunteering 20 hours or more for faith-based causes, and 57.8% for non-faith-based causes. Muslim women were also found to integrate Islamic values with modern giving strategies, blending faith-based giving with contemporary philanthropic models. The report noted, “Muslim women who are registered to vote are more likely to donate, volunteer, and participate in the community.” 

Building Institutional Philanthropy

The American Muslim Community Foundation (AMCF) was founded in 2016 to address the lack of centralized philanthropic infrastructure for American Muslims. Co-founder Muhi Khwaja states that AMCF was created to increase representation and visibility of Muslim charitable giving. When AMCF was founded, there was no centralized platform for strategic Muslim giving through Donor Advised Funds (DAFs). Muslims were incredibly charitable, yet their contributions were underrepresented by mainstream philanthropy. Since its inception, AMCF has facilitated $21 million in donations to 900 nonprofits, established 226 DAFs and 26 endowments, and launched the American Muslim Women’s Giving Circle which has distributed $40,000 to women-focused nonprofits.

AMCF has been working to change the Muslim giving mindset from reactive giving to strategic giving by educating the Muslim community on effective giving models like Donor Advised Funds, Collaborative Funds, Giving Circles and Endowments. Khwaja describes the efforts to highlight Muslim generosity and dispel misconceptions in mainstream philanthropy through participation in conferences with AFP, panels with the Harvard Islamic Finance Conference, media campaigns, and by highlighting the work of other institutions at AMCF’s Annual Muslim Philanthropy Awards.

“While progress has been made, the work continues. We at AMCF remain committed to growing the infrastructure for Muslim philanthropy and ensuring our community is recognized as a key contributor to positive social change,” Khwaja said.

The Role of Collective Giving

The Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy’s Patterns in the Tapestry: A Typology of Collective Giving Groups (2024) report highlights collective giving as a rising trend in various communities. Giving Circles – where individuals pool resources and decide collectively how to allocate funds –  are emerging as powerful tools for Muslim donors. 

AMCF has successfully implemented the American Muslim Women’s Giving Circle which exemplifies this approach and allows members to support organizations that provide for and are led by Muslim American women. This model provides a sustainable way to address immediate needs, allows donors with limited means to participate, and builds long-term philanthropic engagement.

Platforms like Feeling Blessed, LaunchGood, and GiveMasjid further amplify Muslim philanthropy by showcasing the generosity Islam requires of its adherents. The Muslim Zakat Report (2023) indicates that 70.5% of respondents believe “the poor and needy have a right to a portion of my wealth and/or income.” This demonstrates that Muslims give not only out of a religious sense of duty, but because they fervently believe that those with more should help those with less.

The Future of Muslim American Philanthropy

As Muslim philanthropy evolves, it faces challenges and opportunities. Key priorities highlighted by Muhi Khwaja are:

• Promoting Long-Term Giving Models: Encouraging sustained philanthropy through endowments and unrestricted funding.
• Financial Literacy & Philanthropic Education: Aligning giving strategies with Islamic principles.
• Strengthening Collaboration & Representation: Partnering with mainstream philanthropic institutions.
• Documenting & Showcasing Impact: Ensuring Muslim generosity is recognized in national philanthropic narratives.
• Engaging the Next Generation: Empowering youth through mentorship and giving circles.

Khwaja’s goal is simple. “AMCF can help build a world where Muslim giving is so pronounced that any ill-mannered Islamophobic rhetoric cannot overcome the charitable giving our community does,” she said. 

Hussain underscores the “data gap” as a barrier to understanding our impact and limits advocacy. Mufti sees the biggest challenge ahead will be  fostering unity across the diverse Muslim American community and emphasizing collaboration over division.

Muslim Americans have demonstrated a steadfast commitment to philanthropy with women playing a crucial role. While focusing on our Islamic values and principles, philanthropy allows American Muslims to have a positive impact, fostering positive change, challenging stereotypes, and ensuring that our good deeds redefine mainstream perceptions of Islam and Muslims.

Lisa Kahler is the AMCF Giving Circle Manager.

Want more like this? Subscribe to the Islamic Horizons magazine and support authentic journalism by Muslims for Muslims.

The post Muslim Charitable Giving is Underrepresented in the Mainstream. These Organizations Want to Change That. appeared first on Islamic Horizons.

By Faisal Kutty

May/Jun 25

Canada often lauds itself as a bastion of democracy and free expression. However, recent incidents suggest a troubling trend: advocacy for Palestinian rights is increasingly met with punitive legal action, censorship, and systematic punishment. 

The cases of activist Yves Engler and legal scholar Birju Dattani highlight a concerning pattern where dissenting voices challenging pro-Israel narratives face legal harassment, reputational harm, and even criminal prosecution.

Engler, a Montreal-based writer and activist known for his critical stance on Canada’s foreign policy and support for Israel, recently faced legal challenges that raise questions about the criminalization of political speech.

He was charged with harassment and indecent communication after publicly responding to social media posts by pro-Israel commentator Dahlia Kurtz. His critiques, though pointed, were part of public discourse and did not involve direct threats. Despite Kurtz’s option to block Engler on social media, she pursued legal action, potentially setting a precedent that could deter all online debate and/or criticism across Canada.

Compounding the situation, Engler faced additional charges for publicly discussing his arrest. A Montreal police investigator claimed to feel “threatened” by Engler’s commentary on his own case, suggesting an overreach that could stifle legitimate criticism of law enforcement. 

Notably, the police had initially closed the case without action. It was only after intervention by Neil G. Oberman, a Conservative Party candidate with a history of opposing pro-Palestinian activism, that charges were pursued. Oberman’s involvement raises concerns about using legal mechanisms from within government offices to target critics of Israel.

“I’ve never met Kurtz. Nor have I messaged or emailed her. Nor have I threatened her. I don’t even follow her on X,” Engler said in a statement on his website. His arrest has been widely condemned as a blatant violation of free speech rights in Canada.

After spending five days in jail following his arrest by Montreal police, Engler was released on bail on Feb. 25. The prosecution sought to impose a gag order preventing him from mentioning Kurtz or discussing the case publicly. However, the judge deemed these conditions overly broad, allowing Engler to continue his advocacy while prohibiting direct tagging of Kurtz on social media. Despite this partial victory, Engler still faces serious criminal charges and the looming possibility of a lengthy trial. 

Continuing her legal campaign against pro-Palestine voices, Kurtz recently filed a complaint with the Senate ethics officer against British Columbia Senator Yuen Pau Woo, alleging that he “incited hate, aggression, and violence against [her] online in a public forum on X in a series of posts.” She refers to her legal actions against Engler in this complaint.  

Senator Woo previously expressed support for Engler, stating on a post on X, “I support the right of @EnglerYves to voice outrage over genocide in Gaza and to call out those who aid and abet crimes against humanity. The @rcmpgrepolice must explain fully the grounds on which charges are being laid and how these actions do not violate freedom of expression.” This case raises critical questions about the boundaries of free speech and the responsibilities of public officials to protect their constituents from unjust prosecution.

The suppression of pro-Palestinian voices extends beyond criminal prosecutions. Coordinated smear campaigns have also been effective in silencing dissent. This is evident in the case of Birju Dattani who resigned as Canada’s Chief Human Rights Commissioner amid allegations of antisemitism stemming from his past critiques of Israel’s human rights record.  

Conservative MP Melissa Lantsman, the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA), and pundit Ezra Levant led a campaign portraying Dattani as an extremist. An independent investigation commissioned by Justice Minister Arif Virani found no evidence supporting these accusations concluding that Dattani did not harbor antisemitic views and that his expertise on Israel-Palestine could have been beneficial in his role as Canada’s Chief Human Rights Commissioner. Nevertheless, political pressure led to his resignation before these findings could be publicly considered.

Dattani has since filed defamation lawsuits against Lantsman, CIJA, and Levant, challenging the narratives that led to his ousting. His case will test whether professionals can engage in human rights advocacy without facing political repercussions.

Engler and Dattani’s experiences are not isolated. Since Israel’s genocidal onslaught against Gaza began in October of 2023, Canada has seen an escalation in actions against pro-Palestinian speech:

·        In November 2023, Calgary police arrested Palestinian-Canadian activist Wesam Khaled for chanting “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” at a protest. Although charges were later dropped, the arrest signaled that lawful speech could subject activists to legal scrutiny.

·        Academics, journalists, health care workers, and university students critical of Israel’s policies commonly face expulsion, redundancy, blacklisting, and reputational damage. The harm caused by potentially being tarnished as an antisemite has led to widespread self-censorship.

This selective suppression reveals a double standard. While Canadian leaders advocate for free expression globally, they curtail it when it comes to criticism of Israel.

The criminal charges against Engler and the attempted speech restrictions in his bail conditions represent serious violations of free expression. If such prosecutions succeed, they could set a dangerous legal precedent in Canada whereby criticizing a public figure on social media leads to criminal harassment charges and law enforcement penalizes individuals for discussing their own legal cases in public forums.

These actions risk transforming the legal process into a punitive vehicle targeting political dissent. Even if Engler is ultimately acquitted, his arrest, detention, and public legal ordeal serves to intimidate, isolate, and financially burden citizens all across Canada who have the temerity to challenge prevailing state narratives. This environment is expressly designed to deter activists from criticizing government policies, supporting Palestinian rights, or engaging in contentious public discourse.

Engler and Dattani’s cases underscore the fragility of free speech in Canada. Their experiences serve as a warning: challenging powerful narratives can have severe consequences. 

This form of repression operates subtly in liberal democracies – not through overt bans, but by making dissent so costly that individuals choose silence.

The pressing question now is: will Canadians defend free speech, or will they allow a system that punishes those who speak truth to power to persist unchecked?

Faisal Kutty, is a lawyer, law professor and regular contributor to The Toronto Star and Newsweek. You can follow him on X @faisalkutty.

Want more like this? Subscribe to the Islamic Horizons magazine and support authentic journalism by Muslims for Muslims.

The post Canada Silences Voices of Conscience  appeared first on Islamic Horizons.

By The ISNA Green Initiative Team

May/Jun 25

Fresh air is not as fresh as many may think. A majority of the world’s population is exposed to polluted air. It is one of the world’s largest health and environmental concerns and is the second-largest risk factor for early death according to a recent report by the Health Effects Institute.

Those living in cities with chronically bad air have no choice but to inhale toxins. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), while air quality varies dramatically depending on specific location, natural geography, and other key factors, about 99% of the global population at some point has been exposed to air that doesn’t meet the organization’s standards for air quality.

“Clean air is a human right. Unfortunately, it is not a reality for a large proportion of the world’s population,” said Dr. Maria Neira, Director of the WHO Public Health, Environment, and Social Determinants of Health Department. 

Air Pollution and its Impacts

Air pollution is the introduction and contamination of the indoor or outdoor environment by harmful materials. Inhaling fine particles is among the most damaging form of air pollution to human populations. The tiniest of these particles, measured as PM 2.5 (less than 2.5 microns in diameter), can travel deeply into the human respiratory system. The most common sources of PM 2.5 include vehicular emissions, industrial pollutants, and particulates created by fire, especially crop burning in rural areas. Coarser particles, known as PM 10 (less than 10 microns diameter), are linked to agriculture, roadways, mining, or simply wind. Air pollution is also caused by other factors like forest fires and volcanic ash. The Clean Air Act, environmental protection legislation initially enacted in the United States in 1963, lists 187 hazardous air pollutants which are defined as any chemical, physical, or biological agent that modifies the natural characteristics of the atmosphere. Household combustion devices, motor vehicles, industrial facilities, and forest fires are common sources of these pollutants. 

The combination of outdoor and indoor particulate matter and ozone is one of the leading causes of heart disease, stroke, lower respiratory infections, lung cancer, diabetes, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). These pollutants not only take years from people’s lives but also infringe substantially on the quality of life for those struggling to breathe polluted air.  

According to the United Nations Health Agency, air pollution kills about 7 million people every year. For the millions living in some of the world’s smoggiest cities – New Delhi, India, Dhaka, Bangladesh, Bangkok, Thailand, Lahore, Pakistan, and Jakarta, Indonesia – bad air is inescapable. During the winter of 2024, smog in New Delhi and Lahore were the highest ever recorded on the Air Quality Index (AQI). Schools and other institutions were forced to close and respiratory illnesses spiked. A recent analysis by the U.N. children’s agency found that more than 500 million children in East and South Asia breathe unhealthy air. 100 children under five die every day as a result of this toxic exposure.

About 7 million people die every year due to ambient or household air pollution. Research shows that those at the greatest risk from particulate air pollution include:

• Individuals who are pregnant 
• Infants, children, and people over the age of 65
• People with respiratory illnesses
• People with cardiovascular disease
• Black, Indigenous, and other people of color
• Current or former smokers
• People from low-income backgrounds
• People who are obese or have diabetes.

Most air toxins originate from manmade sources such as automobiles, industrial facilities, and small area sources. Stationary sources like power plants, chemical manufacturing, aerospace manufacturing, and steel mills also emit air toxins. Air toxins are also released from natural sources such as large forest fires. 

But the burden of air pollution remains greatest in low and middle-income countries. Indoor pollution rates tend to be highest in low-income countries due to a reliance on solid fuels for cooking and heating. Outdoor air pollution tends to increase as countries industrialize and shift from low to middle income economic status. 

Primary Causes of Indoor Air Pollution

• Wood, coal, or fuel-burning combustion appliances
• Tobacco products
• Building materials and furnishings such as:
  • Deteriorated asbestos-containing insulation
  • Newly installed flooring, upholstery or carpet
  • Cabinetry or furniture made of certain pressed wood products
• Products for household cleaning and maintenance, personal care, or hobbies
• Central heating and cooling systems including humidification devices
• Unvented malfunctioning appliances
• Outdoor sources such as:
  • Radon
  • Pesticides
  • Outdoor air pollution

Other sources of indoor air pollution include outside air, natural ventilation, and mechanical ventilation. Pollution can enter the home through openings, joints, and cracks in walls, floors, and ceilings, and around windows and doors. 

Air movement associated with infiltration and natural ventilation is caused by air temperature differences between the indoors and outdoors and by the movement of wind. Inadequate ventilation can increase indoor pollutant levels by not bringing in enough outdoor air to dilute emissions from indoor sources and by not carrying indoor air pollutants out of the area. When there is little infiltration, the air exchange rate is low, and pollutant levels increase. Pollutant concentrations can also remain in the air for long periods of time. If too little outdoor air enters indoor locations, pollutants can accumulate to levels that can pose health and comfort problems. 

Indoor Air Quality and Environmental Justice

Neither is the problem of air pollution isolated to communities in Asia. The American Lung Association’s State of the Air 2024 report found that despite decades of progress toward clean air, 39% of Americans live in places with unhealthy levels of air pollution, a number that was up from the previous year. 

In U.S. counties with the worst air quality, 63% of the nearly 44 million residents are people of color. 

This discrepancy reflects the systemic environmental injustice toward the people of color in the United States. It negates The Principle of Environmental Justice (EJ) as defined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.” Solutions to this environmental injustice in communities of color in the United States require that the state and local governments involve the affected communities in devising and implementing local solutions for environmental health problems including the persistent problem of poor air quality.  

There are many ways individuals can reduce their role in the creation of air pollution. These include using public transportation, reducing energy consumption, moderating waste, and using air filtration and purification systems to improve indoor air quality. Additionally, to protect their own respiratory health, people can limit outdoor activities when air quality is at unhealthy levels and stay informed about real-time air quality conditions using apps.

However, the problem of air pollution requires the collective efforts of individuals, communities, and governments worldwide. Governments must facilitate the investment in energy-efficient power generation, improve waste management, and promote greener and more compact cities with energy-efficient buildings. Universal access to clean, affordable fuels and technologies including building safe and affordable public transport systems is necessary to reduce air pollution in vulnerable communities across the globe. 

There are many ways an everyday person can work toward a cleaner future. Join local grassroots organizations focused on environmental justice, urge your representatives to push clean air policies, run for office and be the change you wish to see in the world. We must work towards a future where clean air is a fundamental human right, and every individual can live a healthy and fulfilling life.

The ISNA Green Initiative Team is your voice to advocate a better environment for all. We would appreciate your support for raising the voice for clean air for all.

The ISNA Green Initiative Team is Huda Alkaff, Saffet Catovic, Nana Firman, Uzma Mirza, and S. Masroor Shah (Chair).

Want more like this? Subscribe to the Islamic Horizons magazine and support authentic journalism by Muslims for Muslims.

The post Majority of World’s Inhabitants Are Exposed to Polluted Air appeared first on Islamic Horizons.