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.

By Cynthia Griffith

Mar/Apr 25

Islam is the fastest-growing religion in the world, but in the United States, not all Muslims are accounted for. The U.S. Census Bureau’s religious data does not include one of the largest populations of Muslim Americans: incarcerated converts. This is indicative of a larger effort to make it appear as if the growth of Islam is due to high birth rates and immigration alone, which is a fallacy. Additionally, this accounting practice illustrates a dismissive and dehumanizing attitude toward  incarcerated people who may embrace Islam. The implication  is that incarcerated converts are somehow less representative of the general population outside of  jail. This unjust message can then be used to perpetuate additional harmful stereotypes against Muslim Americans whether converts, prisoners, or other individuals within the Muslim community.

Islamic Horizons reached out to the U.S. Census Bureau to discuss this matter, and a representative confirmed the Bureau does not collect data on religious affiliations. They directed Horizons to the Bureau of Prisons (BOP). Horizons found that while the BOP collects data for categories such as age, race, ethnicity, and citizenship status, it does not account for the religious identity of inmates. 

This practice of not counting converts to Islam as Muslims dates to the early 20th century, and has prevented federal courts from interfering with inmate rights cases for many decades.

Some states are accommodating to the incarcerated Muslims’ religious needs, while others are not. For example, only 17 states allow inmates the right to religious head coverings, and some states make it difficult or impossible for Muslims to access alternative meals.

According to the Pew Research Center, “The U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics routinely reports on several characteristics of the U.S. prison population, such as age, gender, and racial/ethnic composition, but it does not usually report on the religious affiliation of inmates, and independent surveys of inmates rarely are permitted.”

Uttering the Shahada in Jail

Philadelphia native Faheem took his shahada in 1979 after he was sentenced to 10 years in the notorious Graterford Prison, about 31 miles northwest of Philadelphia. His story is emblematic of the decades-long pattern of embracing the Islamic faith in U.S. correctional institutions. Faheem described his time served as an awe-inspiring experience and proclaimed that even as far back as 45 years ago, the Muslim prison population was so abundant that they “pretty much ran the whole jail.”

“When entering prison, I was immediately greeted by the Muslims,” Faheem fondly recalled. “They had a huge community and were respected by everyone from all other religions. . . not to mention they had a massive impact on the guards.”

Faheem said it was the character of his Muslim brothers that drew him to Islam. “They were the intellectuals, the scholarly, community men, and they had developed a reputation for their cleanliness, unity, and leadership roles throughout the jail,” he said. “They pretty much ran everything – the cafeteria, the library, and the mechanical and academic departments. They did so in a just and orderly fashion, to the point where even non-Muslims referred to them for advice. The local guards were so impressed and influenced that many of them took their shahadas too, and you could see the dawah spreading far beyond the towering concrete walls.”

This Population Could Potentially Represent Millions of Uncounted Muslims

Excluding Muslim prisoners from the U.S. census when counting Muslim Americans is part of a broader effort to make Islam appear as if it is spread by immigration only and as if conversion plays little to no role in the astronomical growth of Islam. Census numbers in the contemporary United States tell a vastly different story.  

The United States has the highest rate of incarceration per capita in the world (World Prison Brief, October 2021). According to the Prison Policy Initiative , there are approximately 7 million prison admissions annually. While some people cycle in and out of the U.S. prison industrial complex more than once per year, many others are new to the system. These offenders are frequently jailed for nonviolent crimes. The Prison Policy Initiative also found that many who get arrested are innocent but find themselves imprisoned for days, months, and even years, simply because they are too poor to make bail.

Policies and legislation play a pivotal role in the criminal justice system. There are laws in place that target specific demographics of people and push them into the prison system for minor infractions. For example, it is illegal for a homeless person to sleep, stand, walk, or otherwise engage in life-sustaining activities in public. Doing so can result in a fine or even in an arrest. Recently, a homeless woman was issued a citation while giving birth on a sidewalk.

Faheem recalled a time in the not-so-distant past when unjust policies were used to target people like him – African American males in their late teens. Faheem was convicted on the count of possessing an illegal weapon at just 19 years old. Despite the fact that he never used the alleged weapon to incite violence, he was still given a lengthy sentence that would last well into adulthood. 

“Really, I got off easy doing ten years,” he said. “I can’t even count how many 18 and 19-year-olds who looked like me were given life sentences for petty crimes, and how many of them were innocent.”

Many Americans are aware of the vast injustices taking place in the prison industrial complex, but without hard data, we cannot even begin to imagine how many Muslims, converts, and born Muslims alike, have filtered through the system. If seven million arrests are made each year, how many millions of Muslims have, for decades, been uncounted and left out of the data? Untold stories of Muslim resilience move like modern folklore over city streets, anonymous sources of inspiration. How impactful would these tales be if they were told to the masses?

 The Need for Resources for Incarcerated Muslim Americans 

A former volunteer prison chaplain who wishes to remain anonymous and who used to visit an upstate New York maximum security prison once mused that the imprisoned convert’s journey is “akin to Hijrah, moving to a world of enlightenment.” He said, “We need more resources for people who take the shahada in jail to access upon release.” He also believes that care is needed for the families of the converts, a service which would make them closer to the family of Islam. 

Through the onslaught of mass incarceration, Muslim men and women behind bars are too often counted out – out of the data, out of employment opportunities, out of their families, and out of society altogether. Their stories are relegated to oral traditions spoken in small inner-city circles, and occasional mainstream media coverage. According to Oxford Research Encyclopedias, most mainstream media coverage of North American Muslims casts them in a negative light through techniques like othering and Orientalism. But their numbers are not few, and if they were accounted for, the ever-growing and sizable sum of Muslims in America would be made much clearer to the news consuming public at large. 

Islam is the fastest-growing religion in the world and it grows in some of the most formidable places on Earth. No 6 by 8 foot concrete cage can contain it. No barred metal door can hold it back. No amount of darkness can cover the light it shines on open hearts and yearning souls.

“I never committed another crime after becoming a Muslim in prison,” Faheem concludes.

May God continue to bless him and the countless other converts who share a similar story. 

Cynthia C. Griffith, a social justice journalist focusing on environmental and civil rights issues. She’s a regular contributor at Invisible People where she muses regarding the earth, space, faith, science, politics, and literature have appeared on several popular websites.

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

The post Hidden Prisoners: The U.S. Census Bureau Doesn’t Count Incarcerated Converts as Muslims appeared first on Islamic Horizons.

By Faisal Kutty

Mar/Apr 25

The ongoing crackdown on pro-Palestinian campus activism across the United States exposes a troubling double standard in how universities handle free speech. While rhetoric critical of Israeli policies is swiftly condemned and restricted, activism against other regimes, even those with poor human rights records, do not face the same scrutiny. This selective outrage stifles debate, marginalizes dissenting voices, and undermines the principles of academic freedom that universities claim to uphold.

This approach, evident most recently in Berkeley Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky’s opinion piece in The New York Times calling on campuses to clamp down on pro-Palestinian protests, raises troubling questions about selective condemnation and the broader implications for free speech on college campuses. By selectively condemning Palestinian resistance to Israeli occupation while offering only a muted critique of Israel’s ongoing actions, U.S. universities are, in fact, legitimizing a narrative that selectively applies principles of free speech at various campus events. 

While campus supporters of Israel are right to decry rhetoric celebrating Hamas’s actions, they often only offer a tepid acknowledgement of Israel’s ongoing destruction in Gaza. This narrow focus on protecting the sensitivities of Zionist or even Jewish students while minimizing or ignoring Palestinian suffering reveals a deeper flaw in their argument: a conflation of Jewish identity with Zionism and the resulting repression of legitimate expressions of support for the Palestinian struggle.

One of the most significant issues with this line of thinking is the failure to distinguish between anti-Israel protests and antisemitism. The assumption that opposition to Israeli policies creates a hostile environment for Jewish students promotes the false claim that all Jews support Israeli actions, or the equally flawed doctrine that Israel acts on behalf of global Jewry. This narrative erases the voices of the many Jews who stand against Israel’s occupation and decades-long apartheid regime. Contrary to these faulty assumptions, evidence shows that a  growing number of Jewish students and faculty advocate for Palestinian rights, often from a non-Zionist or anti-Zionist perspective. The failure to recognize this distinction reinforces a dangerous narrative that equates criticism of Israel with hostility toward Jewish identity, a deliberately false premise that weaponizes the horrors of  antisemitism to stifle legitimate, on campus debate.

On October 21, 2024, at the University of Minnesota, for instance, eleven pro-Palestinian protesters were arrested for occupying an administrative building while calling for divestment from Israel. This group were but a few of a much larger punitive push across the country. In just six months, more than 3,000 people have been arrested nationwide for engaging in pro-Palestine advocacy on college campuses. Institutions that once prided themselves on championing free speech have now become hostile environments for those opposing Israeli violence against civilian populations. The U.S. Department of Education (DOE) has further intensified this repression by pressuring universities to take aggressive steps to curb antisemitism. In at least one instance, the DOE  went so far as to claim that anti-genocide protests may have created a “hostile environment,” conflating legitimate criticism of Israeli policies with hate speech. This shift undermines the open debate that universities are supposed to foster, chilling free expression and disproportionately silencing pro-Palestinian voices. 

Meanwhile, the experiences of Palestinian students and their allies are ignored. For example, in the Fall 2024 semester, a leaked recording of Santa J. Ono, the University of Michigan president, revealed a disturbing bias within universities, with powerful groups pressuring administrators to combat antisemitism while disregarding Islamophobia and anti-Palestinian hate. This unbalanced approach results in Arab, Muslim, and other non-Zionist or anti-Zionist students feeling unsafe or unwelcome while universities prioritize Zionist perspectives and silence Palestinian, Arab, and other Muslim and voices.

Across American campuses, new restrictions have been implemented to stifle these protests. Indiana University enacted an “expressive activity policy” that bans protests after 11 p.m., prohibits camping, and requires pre-approval for signs. These measures specifically target pro-Palestinian voices, prompting the question: should similar restrictions apply to protests against Saudi Arabia or Iran because they could be considered anti-Arab hate or Islamophobia? 

There is, of course, an argument that suggests that celebrating violence against civilians is both an ethical and political mistake. Such rhetoric distracts from the legitimate cause of Palestinian liberation and gives opponents a pretext to discredit the entire movement. However, those campaigning to shut down Palestinian activism go beyond condemning extremist rhetoric. Rather, these efforts form only a part of a broader effort to undermine all forms of Palestinian resistance, even those grounded in international law. By focusing solely on those who justify violence, these critics fail to address the root causes of the conflict: the Israeli occupation of historic and contemporary Palestine, systematic state-sanctioned and settler violence against Palestinian civilians, and enumerable methods of inhuman oppression that drive Palestinian  resistance. Their selective outrage paints a one-sided narrative, leaving little room for a nuanced discussion on the ethics and legality of Palestinian resistance.

Ultimately, one-sided condemnations are a danger to free speech on campus. They selectively condemn expressions of solidarity with Palestine while protecting inherently violent Zionist narratives, silencing both Palestinian voices and anti-Zionist Jewish voices. If universities genuinely value free speech, they must condemn all forms of violence – whether it is the celebration of attacks on Israel or the defense of Israel’s war crimes in Gaza. Anything less is an endorsement of selective repression, a betrayal of free speech principles, and a denial of the fundamental rights of the Palestinian people.

Faisal Kutty is a lawyer, writer, public speaker, and human rights advocate. He currently teaches at Southwestern Law School and is an affiliate faculty member at the Center for Security, Race, and Rights at Rutgers University. He also holds the title of associate professor of Law Emeritus at Valparaiso University. 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 Selective Outrage: The Danger of One-Sided Condemnations in Campus Speech appeared first on Islamic Horizons.

By Mohammad Abdullah

Mar/Apr 25

Packaged food nutrition labels are important for Muslim consumers because these convey information about the product’s identity while the Ingredient Statement allows them to determine the product’s status as either halal, haram, or doubtful. Nutrition labels also provide advice on how to handle, store, prepare, and/or consume food products safely where needed, especially meat and poultry products. In case of food recalls, labels with batch numbers can also help identify the source of a contaminated product quickly, thus mitigating the threat to the consumer.

The problem, however, is that some labels can be vague and even misleading. The United States has no nutrient warning policy unlike countries like Chile, Mexico, Peru, and Uruguay that have had them since 2016. These policies focus on products with excessive levels of unhealthy nutrients, and require these products to display front of package (FOP) warning labels such as: “WARNING: High in added sugar or high in sodium” to inform consumers of the high content of potentially unhealthy nutrients.

In contrast, beside not having the nutrient warning policy, American manufacturers use colorful images, product names, and claims that make the food seem healthy on FOP labels such as being lower in calories or added sugar or being “naturally” flavored. But these vague descriptions may mislead consumers by leaving out less favorable information such as being high in sodium or saturated fat. When it comes to food labels conforming with critically important Islamic dietary practices therefore, simply checking for halal or kosher markers is not enough.

As a result, grocery shopping as a Muslim requires extensive knowledge about ingredients and industrial food preparation. Through the late 1960s, there was little information on food labels to identify their nutrient content. Back then, meals in American households were typically prepared at home from basic ingredients and most foods did not require a nutrition label. However, as more processed foods and beverages entered the U.S. market, and food retailers became more deceitful and blatantly profit-seeking, consumers soon came to need additional information that would help them make informed choices. 

In 1990, Congress passage of the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act was an historic moment for the food industry. As a result of this legislation, food producers were forced to include food labels on their products to disclose key nutritional information, including a “% Daily Value” (DV) that is based on a 2,000-calorie diet. This information can be used to support personal dietary needs by looking for foods that contain more or less of the nutrients they desire. However, as it turns out, 2,000 was never an accurate number. It was, in fact, a number arrived at via extensive debate and disagreement that has yet to be fully resolved. “In truth, there is no standard number of daily calories,” said Joseph St. Pierre, Hartford HealthCare bariatric specialist at St. Vincent’s Medical Center.

Confusing and Misleading Food Labelling 

A food label claim becomes confusing or misleading when it provides inaccurate or incomplete product information, potentially deceiving consumers into believing something about it that isn’t true. Manufacturers generally describe the nutrient levels by using terms such as “free,” “high,” “low,” and “reduced,” or they use a number of other attractive or beneficial identifiers such as “organic,” “free-range,” or “no-hormone” to convince consumers that the product is healthy and ethical. In actuality, the term “organic” does not necessarily mean a product is healthy while the term “free-range” does not mean that chickens roam free yards.

Other examples of confusing terms are “no-cholesterol peanut butter,” (cholesterol is only found in animal products), or the use of “made with sea salt” (both table salt and sea salt have about the same amount of sodium per serving). The terms “Superfoods” or “Superfruits” are also misleading and lack scientific evidence and the use of the term “low carb” is misleading as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not have any guidelines for such labels. According to the FDA, “light” sounds healthy, but some products are extensively processed to reduce calories or fat, and consumers are advised to check carefully to see what has been added to make up for these reduced quantities. 

Grace Hussain lists terms considered among the most misleading food labelling. She claims that “sugar-free” products can contain up to 0.5 grams of sugar in each serving while “fruit-flavored” is typically flavored with chemicals that produce a fruity taste The claim “made with whole grains” is also misleading as food producers can claim that foods are made with whole grains even if they are made primarily with refined grains Likewise, the term “multigrain” simply means that a variety of grains were used in the food and most, if not all of them, are likely refined. The FDA defines “natural” to mean a product that contains nothing artificial or synthetic, while the USDA defines it as simply minimally processed. The “no-cholesterol” label suggests that it is cholesterol-free, but according to FDA, these food items can contain up to 2 milligram of cholesterol per serving.

The Truth Behind “Organic” Foods

The marketing effort behind organic foods in the United States has been strong for some time. Commonly, organic foods are said to be grown with no chemicals, making them safer and more nutritious for consumers. But according to avid gardener and author Robert Pavlis in his bookFood Science for Gardeners, scientific testing does not support these claims. In one study of 68,946 French adults published in JAMA Internal Medicine in 2018, a correlation between organic food consumption and a reduced risk of cancer was heavily criticized for various methodological flaws. Other studies claiming the benefits of organic food consumption have come under similar scrutiny.

Rather than an authentic representation of the actual content of food items, such marketing terms are mostly used to increase the product’s sales. It is not surprising, then, that according to a 2024 report in Newsweek, none of the world’s 30 biggest food companies were following the World Health Organization’s (WHO) recommendations for responsible marketing.

Factors Leading to Vague and Misleading Food Label Claims

Marketing influences food preferences and choices. Research shows that adding health claims on FOP labels makes people believe that the product is healthier than products that do not list such health claims, thus affecting consumer choices. Unfortunately, most people use the information provided on the FOP rather than the information provided on the “Nutrition Fact” table and in the “Ingredient Statement” for the product itself.

There are also other factors that may lead to further confusion such as the FDA allowing for up to a 20% margin of error. For example, if the label of a food product says there is a certain amount of carbs, calories, or sugars in it, there could be up to 20% more or less than is specified in the label. 

Compounding the confusion is the fact that food products are regulated by multiple government, state, or private agencies. For example, the National Organic Program (NOP) is the federal regulatory framework governing organically produced crops and livestock. Certifiers interested in becoming a USDA Accredited Certifying Agent (ACA) apply to the NOP for accreditation. The USDA oversees the program and enforces the NOP regulations and standards. But some reports indicate that the enforcement division needs to make major improvements before labels identifying organic foods are to be trusted.

Another important factor contributing to the overall confusion in food labeling is the lack of consumers’ knowledge about food label claims and their regulatory agencies. According to the FDA, there are three major types of food claims represented on food packaging, each following a specific set of requirements: health claims, structure/function claims, and nutrient content claims. Health claims on food products require pre-market review and approval by the FDA. However, structure/function and nutrient content claims are FDA regulated but are not pre-approved by the FDA before they are released in the market. This can be misleading because companies can use language to focus on a single positive nutrient while neglecting the product’s other potentially unhealthy aspects. 

 Finding the Truth in Food Labels  

Despite the use of confusing and misleading terms meant to trick consumers into purchasing food products, there are few simple steps consumers can take to make informed decisions at the grocery store:

• Do not solely rely on FOP claims; ignore claims made in large fonts. Read the fine print on the label.
• Choose foods with less than 5 ingredients that are real food and spices. If you want to consume less of something such as saturated fat or sodium, choose foods with a lower percentage DV (5% or less).
• Products that have whole foods listed as the first few ingredients are likely to be healthier than those that list refined grains or sugars first since food ingredients are listed by quantity in descending order.
• Look at serving size to compare nutrients between products.
• Sugar is added to virtually every type of processed food and can be recognized in the ingredients list by the ending “-ose” such as dextrose, fructose, and sucralose. 
• Look for labels and terms that are defined by USDA such as the term “Fresh Poultry” which means that whole poultry and cuts have never been below 26 degrees Fahrenheit. 
• Seek out labels that are verified through third party certifiers such as the term “Grass-Fed” which is approved by the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS). 
• Avoid processed foods altogether, and instead seek out primarily whole foods and plant-based foods such as products made with 100% whole grains, fruits, and vegetables.  

Nutrition labels can provide a wealth of information, so use them to your advantage by following the rule: Read it before you eat it. Reading the nutrition facts and ingredient list must include more intention and diligence for Muslim consumers than just glancing at the front of the package.

Mohammad Abdullah, DVM, who retired after serving 29 years with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service, the agency that regulates the meat industry, is the author of A Closer Look at Halal Meat from Farm to Fork (Ahmed Jakda Publishing, 2016).

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

The post What Everyone Should Know about Food Labels appeared first on Islamic Horizons.

By Margaux Blanchard

Mar/Apr 25

During Ramadan, in classrooms across North America, Muslim students run on nothing but faith and willpower. No snacks, no water, just sabr (patience) and a countdown to maghrib (sunset prayer). While their classmates sip on iced lattes and munch on chips, these students quietly push through lectures, group projects, and pop quizzes while fasting from dawn to dusk. For Muslim students, Ramadan is about taqwa, consciousness of God, and maintaining spiritual focus while navigating the demands of academic life.

While fasting during Ramadan, students wake up at 4:30 a.m. for suhoor (pre-dawn meal), eat half asleep, and then head back to bed only to rise again two hours later for school. By noon, hunger isn’t the main battle; it’s the fatigue that settles in after only a few hours of sleep followed by many more spent concentrating in class. In gym, fasting students often find themselves caught in a dilemma between participating in physical activities with classmates or conserving their much needed energy. Some teachers are quick to offer alternatives – study halls or lighter exercises – while others still expect laps to be run regardless of an empty stomach. It’s a balancing act between honoring faith and meeting academic expectations, one that requires personal and institutional support.

Challenges and Successes for Muslim Students during Ramadan

But Ramadan at school isn’t just about saying “no” to food. It’s also about saying “yes” to faith while praying dhuhr (midday prayer) in a quiet corner or an empty classroom. It is about dodging curious glances, and fielding questions like, “Wait, not even water?” It’s about explaining the significance of fasting without turning every classroom discussion into a theology seminar. 

This consistent pattern of unique struggles Muslim students face during Ramadan hasn’t gone unnoticed. Schools are starting to catch on. Many schools now offer designated prayer spaces, flexible schedules, and cultural-awareness workshops for teachers. In Dearborn – home to the largest Arab American community – schools like Fordson High School send newsletters explaining Ramadan to parents and staff, ensuring that celebrations like Eid al-Fitr are recognized alongside Christmas and Hanukkah.

(https://www.espn.com/college-sports/highschool/news/story?id=5467167)

Despite this progress, some challenges remain. In smaller towns such as Lafayette, La., accommodations can feel more like exceptions than norms. Students often have to advocate for themselves by requesting spaces to pray or by asking for understanding when they simply can’t give 100%. Some face microaggressions like peers eating as conspicuously as possible or teachers questioning whether fasting affects their ability to perform in class. 

During times of discouragement, it is important to remember that Ramadan isn’t just about the challenges; it’s also about pride. Many Muslim students see the holy month as an opportunity to share their culture and religion with classmates. Some schools, like Al-Huda School in College Park, Md., turn the month of fasting into a teaching moment, incorporating lessons about Ramadan and Islam into the curriculum. These efforts go a long way toward demystifying the practices and countering stereotypes, but they also highlight a deeper issue – why does it take seeing Muslim students struggle during Ramadan for schools to notice Islam?

The answer, for many educators, lies in policy, or the lack of it. While some cities such as Chicago and Houston have introduced guidelines for religious accommodations, others are still navigating these waters without clear direction. Teachers, often left to make decisions without institutional support or advice, rely on their own understanding or misunderstanding of Ramadan, leading to inconsistent and sometimes problematic practices. For their part, the students themselves are often the ones having to repeatedly explain their practices to teachers and peers, turning their personal spiritual journey into a public discussion.

(https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/with-start-of-ramadan-muslim-students-in-lousiana-want-better-accommodations-in-schools)

Even in schools that make accommodations, there’s an underlying tension – how much flexibility is too much? At what point does inclusivity become favoritism? While most schools are moving toward inclusion, some are still grappling with the idea that accommodating religious practices doesn’t mean endorsing them.

For Muslim students, however, the need is clear. Ramadan isn’t just a month of fasting; it’s a deeply personal, spiritual journey that doesn’t pause for exams, essays, or gym class. As schools continue to diversify, the question isn’t whether they should adapt, but how quickly and how thoughtfully they can rise to meet the moment.

Policy Priorities in Diverse School Settings

In Toronto, where multiculturalism is sewn into the city’s fabric, some schools are at the forefront of accommodating Ramadan observances. Teacher Zara Malik at Valley Park Middle School in Toronto described how designated prayer rooms felt like sanctuaries during busy school days. “We pushed for it and now we have this space where we don’t feel like we’re interrupting anyone’s schedule just to practice our faith,” she said.

Teachers in these schools are proactive, allowing students to reschedule tests or assignments. But inclusivity isn’t always seamless. Toronto educator Diana Andrews, a history teacher at Lawrence Heights Public School, admitted that the learning curve is steep. “The first year, we weren’t prepared,” Andrews said. “We had students falling asleep in class and skipping gym without explanation. Now we know better. We give options for lighter activities in PE and plan tests with flexibility in mind.” 

In Dearborn, inclusivity is less about building awareness and more about refining practices. Schools in Dearborn have long embraced prayer rooms and adjusted schedules for Muslim students, but administrators are now experimenting with more structured approaches.

“We don’t just accommodate anymore,” said Principal Hadiya Al-Khatib of Crestwood Preparatory College in Toronto. “We integrate.” She pointed to events like Ramadan-themed assemblies and iftars hosted on campus as examples of efforts to create a sense of belonging. “The goal is to make students feel seen, not just tolerated,” she said.

In rural areas where Muslim populations are smaller and less visible, change is slower but no less significant. For example, in Montana, educators are learning to adapt in real time. Emily Rogers, principal of West High School in Billings, Mt., admitted she hadn’t heard of Ramadan until a student brought it up. “We’re playing catch-up,” she said, “but we’ve turned a storage closet into a prayer room, and our PE teacher now offers students the option to sit out certain activities. It’s baby steps, but we’re getting there.” 

For some students in schools with a smaller Muslim population, accommodations have been life changing. Amina Yusuf, a junior in a rural Kansas high school, shared how difficult her first Ramadan as a freshman at school had been. “There was nowhere to pray, and lunchtime was the worst,” she said. “I’d just sit in the library, alone.”

After her parents met with the administration, the school created a quiet room and encouraged teachers to let fasting students take breaks if needed. “It’s not perfect but I don’t feel invisible anymore,” Yusuf said.

Policy changes played a big role in this shift. Some districts issued formal guidelines, encouraging teachers to offer flexible deadlines and adjust schedules during Ramadan. In California, schools are providing cultural competency training for staff, ensuring teachers understand not just the basics of Ramadan but the deeper significance it holds for Muslim students. Educators are often the driving force behind these efforts.

Priya Patel, a math teacher at Stuyvesant High School in New York City, set up a Ramadan resource table in the staff room. “I printed out a cheat sheet explaining the basics – fasting, prayer, Eid – and it sparked conversations,” she said. “Teachers started asking questions instead of making assumptions.”

Policies and practices can only go so far without buy-in from students and parents. Several administrators stressed the importance of open communication, encouraging families to voice their needs without hesitation. (https://ospi.k12.wa.us/policy-funding/equity-and-civil-rights/information-families-civil-rights-washington-schools/religion-schools) In one case, a parent in Fort Cavazos, Tex., worked with the PTA to host a Ramadan Awareness Night, which included a mock iftar for teachers and classmates. (https://www.army.mil/article/275278/iftar_provides_community_connection) These efforts underscore a broader cultural shift in schools from simply acknowledging religious diversity to actively creating environments where it can thrive.

Incremental Change Still Has an Impact

There is still a long way to go. Some students still struggle to explain their faith and traditions to their peers, and not every school has the resources to implement changes quickly. One theme emerged repeatedly: change often begins with a single conversation.

“It all started when a student asked if they could have a quiet space to pray,” Patel said. “That small question sparked bigger changes in how we approach accommodations for Ramadan. Sometimes, change begins with something as simple as asking.” Whether it’s a student asking for a prayer space, a teacher offering flexibility during exams, or a principal turning a supply closet into a quiet refuge, small steps are adding up to create more inclusive learning environments.

As schools continue to evolve, their responses to Ramadan may serve as a litmus test for their broader commitment to equity and inclusion. With each adjustment and accommodation, the message grows louder: faith and education don’t have to exist in separate worlds. They can – and should – thrive together.

Margaux Blanchard is a freelance journalist based in Canada.

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

The post How Ramadan Is Reshaping Educational Inclusion In North America appeared first on Islamic Horizons.

By Tariq Shah

Mar/Apr 25

The U.S. government’s response to the 9/11 attacks, while driven by national security concerns, helped cement a damaging stereotype of Muslims and Arabs as anti-American. This portrayal, amplified by mainstream media, fueled Islamophobia, hate crimes, and social exclusion. Hollywood, as noted in Jack G. Shaheen’s Reel Bad Arabs, played a central role in vilifying Muslims.

Post-9/11, policies like the USA PATRIOT Act (Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001) and the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS) disproportionately targeted Muslim and Arab communities, reinforcing the idea of Muslims as security threats. Meanwhile, the threat posed by domestic groups, such as violent white nationalist militias, was largely ignored, highlighting the need for a more balanced approach to domestic security.

Law professor Caroline Corbin from the University of Miami School of Law identifies two false narratives: “All terrorists are Muslim,” and “White people are never terrorists.” These misconceptions distort reality, as they often morph into the damaging belief that “all Muslims are terrorists.”

The media’s focus on individual Muslims’ actions, painting entire communities or even Islam as responsible, perpetuates this harmful stereotype. The negative coverage of Muslims has a far greater impact on American social consciousness than any positive portrayals. It reinforces the false connection between Muslims and terrorism.

The media’s tendency to link Muslims and terrorism plays on the availability heuristic: vivid, negative portrayals overshadow facts, leading to skewed judgments and fostering hostility toward Muslim Americans. To counter this, we must adopt an evidence-based approach that acknowledges the diversity of Muslim experiences, challenges stereotypes, and promotes nuanced dialogue.

Global Rise in Islamophobia

Islamophobia is a global issue. In Europe, mosques, Muslim-owned businesses, and individuals face rising violence, vandalism, and harassment. In India, the spread of Hindutva, an ideology of anti-Muslim hate, has sparked violent attacks on Muslims, deepening fears in a community already marginalized by racial hatred.

In 2017, a far-right gunman attacked a mosque in Quebec City, killing six. The community responded with vigils and calls for unity. In 2019, a white supremacist gunman killed 51 Muslims in Christchurch, New Zealand, prompting stricter gun laws and the launch of the “Christchurch Call” to combat online extremism.

Media Representation and Responsibility

The internet and social media have become major platforms for scapegoating Islam. Partisan outlets create echo chambers that reinforce harmful narratives, like the idea that Islam is inherently violent. Media outlets often perpetuate a double standard, emphasizing the religion of Muslim perpetrators while downplaying the affiliations of non-Muslim offenders. This selective coverage perpetuates Islamophobia.

To counter these stereotypes, we must promote media literacy, fact-checking, diverse sources, and inclusive representation. A 2017 GAO report found that since 9/11, far-right extremists have committed 73% of deadly extremist incidents in the U.S., compared to 27% by radical Muslim extremists. 

Yet, the media continues to focus on Muslim and black perpetrators, reinforcing racial and religious stereotypes. Researchers have repeatedly demonstrated the propagation of negative stereotypes and Islamophobic tropes by self-proclaimed and media-appointed “experts”.

When individuals are “othered,” they are unfairly blamed for the actions of a few. For example, stereotypes that link Mexicans to crime or Chinese people to the spread of COVID-19 ignore the diversity within these groups. Similarly, when Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu framed military actions in Gaza as a “divine mission,” the role of Judaism in these actions was questioned, yet the religion itself wasn’t blamed for war crimes.

White shooters, on the other hand, are often labeled as “lone wolves,” and their race, religion, or ideology is rarely emphasized.

Joseph Czuba’s 2023 murder of a 6-year-old Palestinian boy was framed as a hate crime, but his religion wasn’t mentioned in news reports. The same is true for recent gunmen who targeted President Trump, where their race, religion, and political affiliations were largely omitted. 

In July and October 2024, two Caucasian gunmen shot at President Trump over political disagreement. The media and police barely mentioned their religion, ethnicity, or political affiliations, only stating these were “unknown.” The New Year’s Eve rampage by Shamsud-Din Jabbar, a U.S. Army veteran struggling with PTSD, economic and personal issues, and isolation, was wrongly linked to his religion by the media. Why the double standard in how Muslim and non-Muslim perpetrators are framed?

Selective demonization of Islam, especially when the perpetrator is Muslim, must end. Stereotyping Islam reinforces misconceptions, prejudice, and violence. It is crucial to recognize that crimes are committed by individuals, not entire communities, or religions.

Muslims Shouldn’t Have to Defend Their Faith

In the aftermath of violent events, Muslims often feel pressured to defend their faith. This is a form of prejudice, not complicity. In Presumed Guilty: Why We Shouldn’t Ask Muslims to Condemn Terrorism, Prof. Todd Green argues that focusing on evidence, rather than assumptions, reveals that no inherent link exists between Islam and terrorism.

Global Initiatives and Collective Action

Combating Islamophobia requires amplifying diverse Muslim voices, consulting experts, and avoiding tokenization. Instead of retreating, we must engage proactively with media platforms to foster accurate, inclusive representation and inclusive storytelling. Muslim youth, supported by imams and community leaders, can drive positive change, and help promote systemic anti-Muslim biases over sensationalism.

The Christchurch Call is an example of collective action against violent extremism online, promoting accountability through shared vision and multi-stakeholder collaboration. This framework offers a model for combating hate in the digital age.

Countering Islamophobia, and hatred of any religion, is a moral, ethical, and civilizational imperative. It is essential for building a just, peaceful society rooted in equality, justice, and mutual respect.

Tariq Shah is a citizen writer and a Michigan resident.

The post Countering Islamophobia is a Civilizational Imperative appeared first on Islamic Horizons.

By Luke Peterson

Mar/Apr 25

Though the well-established institutional and intellectual bias shown by Western media and the United States government toward Israel has been entrenched in this country’s psychology for three-quarters of a century, a new facet in the American insistence on the Israeli narrative has recently emerged. This new element legislates that the U.S. government and its myriad of entities and affiliates refuse to accept or endorse demographic statistics produced by the Palestinian government. 

Specifically, according to a brief provision buried within the recently passed National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which authorized a colossal new $895 billion spending package for the U.S. military, the U.S. will not accept casualty figures from the Gaza Health Ministry as it endeavors to keep up with the nearly interminable list of dead, injured, or missing Gazans since the most recent Israeli assault on that population began in October of 2023. 

Ostensibly, this line-item proviso was attached to the NDAA to maintain intellectual balance in U.S. government recordkeeping on Israel and Palestine. Congress’ stance over Gaza works according to Israeli propaganda requirements that, despite the prolific destruction wrought upon that territory by the Israeli military over the course of the last 15 months, is still largely under the official sway of the Hamas government, a political organization founded in the ideology of resistance to the illegal Israeli occupation of Palestine. Rejecting the Gaza Health Ministry’s statistics is therefore a hedging of bets by the U.S. government. They will not trust Gazan health statistics because Gaza is governed by Hamas, and the U.S. considers Hamas a terrorist entity and is therefore not to be trusted. Lawmakers on both sides of the barely visible political aisle when it comes to this topic agreed on this point all while Israeli statistics are naturally not burdened by the stain of partiality for some reason that has never been explained by the federal government. 

This trend mandating that officials reject statistical information coming from the Gaza Ministry of Health is a new phenomenon. In fact, aspersions cast upon official figures provided by the Gaza Health Ministry began only after the widely lauded humanitarian agency Amnesty International (AI) confirmed for the world what Palestinians already knew: Israel’s indiscriminate assault on Gaza beginning in October of 2023 constitutes genocide. 

AI’s established record as an international watchdog has made it into a standard-bearer of fact in reporting on crises and conflicts all over the world. Today, it is a much relied-upon agency informing state governments as well as political coalitions like the European Union, and it has declared statistics from the Gaza Health Ministry to be factual and reliable. Nevertheless, the official U.S. position is to ignore AI’s finding on the ongoing Israeli genocide in Gaza. As it has done for the past 75 years of this occupation, the U.S. government simply looks away when truly neutral agencies like AI clamor for a ceasefire to protect innocent civilians in Gaza.

AI is not alone in trusting the Gaza Health Ministry to report on intentional Israeli efforts to exterminate the Palestinians. Statistics coming out of the government in Gaza are also trusted by the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. Further, the World Health Organization and Human Rights Watch cite Gaza Ministry of Health figures in their reporting on the destruction of the Palestinian society by the Israeli occupiers. 

Where Israeli crimes are concerned, however, it seems AI’s word confirming the Gaza Health Ministry’s assessment of the carnage done to their own people by the Israeli onslaught is not sufficient for the U.S. government or media establishment. So, continuously in the throes of the ongoing American love affair with Israel, while at the same time rejecting international confirmation of the Ministry of Health in Gaza, the American news establishment deliberately leaves consumers in the dark regarding Israeli brutality in the Gaza Strip. 

As such, the extent of the Israeli destruction of Gaza since October of 2023 is largely unknown to Americans. A key component within that body of ignorance is a profound lack of knowledge about the number of Palestinian dead in Gaza (at least 45,541 including 17,492 children with an additional 11,160 missing) and the percentage of those casualties that were civilian non-combatants (no less than 70% according to Gaza Ministry of Health statistics and verified by additional, international observers). And there is simply no way to account for the thousands of Palestinians who now lie buried under the rubble, a number which may well escalate the number of casualties in Gaza to between 64,000 and 186,000 dead.

Such deliberate obfuscation of the numbers of dead and missing in Gaza by the U.S. news media is perhaps only the most blatant example of that institution carrying water for the state of Israel since 1948, and especially since October of 2023. In addition to these omissions, analysis of the news covering the genocide in Gaza during this period has demonstrated utterly biased coverage in favor of the Israeli narrative across news media outlets in the U.S. In reputable publications from The New York Times to The Washington Post to the Los Angeles Times, coverage of the war on Gaza has enacted hyperbolic language to describe Israeli deaths while downplaying or omitting the killing of Palestinians, a massacre of citizenry more than 40 times larger than the deaths of Israelis that occurred on October 7. 

In a detailed analysis of more than 1,000 news articles from those sources mentioned above, the independent outlet The Intercept uncovered a glaring bias in the U.S. media’s approach to the ongoing destruction of Gaza. “Highly emotive terms for the killing of civilians like ‘slaughter’, ‘massacre’, and ‘horrific’ were reserved almost exclusively for Israelis who were killed by Palestinians, rather than the other way around,” the report read. “The term ‘slaughter’ was used by editors and reporters to describe the killing of Israelis versus Palestinians 60 to 1, and ‘massacre’ was used to describe the killing of Israelis versus Palestinians 125 to 2. ‘Horrific’ was used to describe the killing of Israelis versus Palestinians 36 to 4.” 

Further, shockingly few stories emanating from these standard bearers of U.S. news ever mentioned the staggering number of Palestinian children and journalists that have been killed by Israel. “Only two headlines out of over 1,100 news articles in the study mention the word ‘children’ related to Gazan children,” the Intercept report stated. “The word ‘journalists’ and its iterations such as ‘reporters’ and ‘photojournalists’ only appears in nine headlines out of over 1,100 articles studied.” 

Much more concern was shown by U.S. news media over child killings and the targeting of journalists in Ukraine during this period of time versus the much more numerous casualties of this type inflicted by Israel in Gaza. In the light of this analysis and others of its kind, it is reasonable to conclude that U.S. news media simply does not want its readership to know about the Israeli slaughter of the Palestinians either in its gory detail or even by description in broad strokes. 

So, we are left with an unclear picture of the damage done by Israel in Gaza, and if we continue to put our faith in the authoritative U.S. news media, we will remain ignorant of the horrific crimes committed by America’s closest ally in the Middle East. 

Worse than the promotion of ignorance about this genocide, though, is the the fact that the U.S. is materially abetting Israel’s actions. With only a few weeks left of his bitterly disappointing presidency, Joe Biden authorized an additional $8 billion in weaponry to Israel. Little wonder, then, that American newsmakers want media consumers to look the other way when it comes to Israel’s mass murder in Gaza. What might an accurately informed citizenry do about a government that actively participates in genocide? 

Luke Peterson, Ph.D., The University of Cambridge–King’s College, is a professor of Arabic and Middle Eastern Studies based in Pittsburgh. He is also the author of The U.S. Military in the Print News Media: Service and Sacrifice in Contemporary Discourse (2024).

The post True Gaza Death Toll Remains Unknown appeared first on Islamic Horizons.