UMAA: Whose Tune are You Singing?

UMAA: Whose Tune are You Singing?

By: Fatemah Meghji

Last Updated: June 5th, 2011

Receiving little media attention, Saudi troops have invaded, school-girls have been threatened with rape, military law has been imposed, and hospitals have been occupied in the small Gulf state of Bahrain, home to the US Navy’s Fifth Fleet. The situation has been escalating ever since the protests of the Middle East began, yet the west has remained uninterested in Bahrain’s state of chaos. Meanwhile, people of conscience worldwide have been protesting in solidarity with the Shiite majority of Bahrain, calling for democracy, the abolishment of the ruling monarchy, and an end to the continued western support for the Al-Khalifa regime . The situation of Shiites in Bahrain has been sensitive for years, and undeniably the silence of the world has invigorated this anger. Shiite organizations that have maintained friendly and open ties with western governments for years, have been met with a deafening silence, in one of their direst times of need. As such, the strategy of these organizations needs to be scrutinized and re-evaluated: What do the Shiites and their organizations need to do to best help their cause and plight?

In times of pressure and conflict, organizations and leaders often speak on ‘behalf’ of their people. However, taking the responsibility of speaking on behalf of any group of people, no matter how small, is a heavy and cumbersome burden to bear. If it so happens that the population does not feel its interests and values are being appropriately represented, the people may turn against the very organization that sought to help it. A glaring example of this is UMAA, the Universal Muslim Association of America, claiming to represent the Shiite population in America [1]. Since its inception in 2003, the organization has come under attack and discussions have ensued as to whether or not an agenda that is to the advantage of Shiites is being pursued. After almost a decade of dialogue with the American government, it has proved ineffective in establishing any substantial results. Despite its campaigning for Bahrain while maintaining friendly relations with the U.S. government, America has maintained its unbreakable alliance with the Bahraini monarchy, at the time where it mattered most, showing that it will not help the Shiite community unless it is in America’s strategic interests.  The controversy surrounding UMAA’s effectiveness has manifested itself on various list serves and a few blogs: namely,oppression.org and shiapanaroma.wordpress.com. This paper hopes to bring to light the controversies in a factual manner, reserving judgement over the intentions of those involved, but showing that the strategy of UMAA and organizations like it, has remained ineffective.

Agha Shaukat Jafri, senior member of UMAA, seen on the very right, at the recent protest in solidarity with Bahrain, at the United Nations in New York. (c) Shameel Arafin, March 27 2011

Studying UMAA as an Organization

There are primarily two ways that we can dissect UMAA’s strategies and aims. One is by looking at its official press and public documents, and the second is by looking at the actions of its founding members and current management. Undeniably, the agenda and views of its management shape the actions of the organization— to what extent it does, is up to the reader to decipher. All of the quotes, and actions of any individuals and organizations in what follows, have been referenced. I have especially drawn upon UMAA’s own published works, its various press releases and published magazine, widely available for viewing and/or download on its website www.umaamerica.net. While perception and opinion of others on UMAA has also been referenced at times, I have primarily drawn on the words of UMAA’s management itself and attempted to use as many primary documents as possible. I also requested UMAA for copies of its other published works but was not met with a response. As such, I was forced to use solely that which was available on the website.

Goals and Aims

It should come as no surprise that UMAA has, and wants to, promote dialogue with the American government and become politically involved in America– in fact, that is its explicit aim. Throughout its nine years of existence, UMAA has promoted itself as a means to “improving the Shiite condition”.  In its mission statement, UMAA writes that it seeks to “to provide a forum… to participate in civic and political responsibilities”. In 2004, UMAA actively encouraged the Shiite community to vote, stating that it was a civic responsibility to register and vote.  In a press release from 2010, UMAA claims to be an “organization [that] strives to build bridges between the Shia Muslim community of America and governmental agencies”.

Associations with Questionable Characters

UMAA’s early years were surrounded with controversy in terms of members of its management associating with several questionable characters, including Daniel Pipes, Paul Wolfowitz, Stephen Schwartz, and Larry Franklin.

In 2003, Agha Shaukat Jafri, senior member of UMAA’s management and Dr. Parvez Shah, former President of UMAA, officially endorsed Daniel Pipes to the US Institute for Peace, an infamous character known for his creation of Campus Watch, ardent support for Israel, and his lobbying efforts for a pre-emptive strike on Iran[2]. This endorsement can be found on Daniel Pipes’ website, titling Agha Jafri as the Spokesman for UMAA. In a follow-up endorsement, it is claimed that some names were withdrawn- possibly including those of the UMAA management, although the names withdrawn are unmentioned. UMAA’s FAQ, when addressing this issue, distances itself from the event, saying that UMAA as an organization did not endorse Daniel Pipes but also admits that at least one of its members did endorse Daniel Pipes to such a position. It is not clear whether this is referring to Agha Jafri or Parvez Shah. Agha Jafri’s specific role with UMAA is unclear, as the National Review later cites him as the “secretary general of UMAA”. While UMAA’s FAQ states that he is not currently a spokesperson, the magazine of 2009 places him as a Program Director; thus, it seems that his role has shifted over the years. Undeniably, he has played a significant role in UMAA- whatever role and position that may be. There remains no doubt that Dr. Parvez Shah was the President and one of the founding members of UMAA, and currently its Secretary General[3]. Thus, even though it was only a member of management that endorsed Pipes, it is important to take this into consideration in combination with the rest of UMAA’s strategy and thereafter come to a conclusion.

In addition to the questionable endorsement of Daniel Pipes from at least one member of UMAA’s management, UMAA provided a platform in 2003, for the very master-mind behind the war on Iraq, namely the then U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz.  Wolfowitz was one of the first officials to push for an invasion of Iraq, immediately in the aftermath of 9/11, and less known to the public is that he was also investigated for passing classified documents to Israel through an intermediary in AIPAC. Although in recent times, UMAA has attempted to distance itself from the event; their formal response has been a weak apology at best:

“Paul Wolfowitz was never invited by UMAA itself. During the first convention it was actually the United States Department of Defense itself that contacted UMAA requesting Paul Wolfowitz be[sic] allowed to address the Shia Muslim gathering….UMAA apologizes if we caused anyone to be upset by this incident. We did what we thought was in the best interest of the Shia community, but we acknowledge that we did not handle this entire situation the way it should have been handled.”

Whether or not Wolfowitz was invited or invited himself is irrelevant- the very fact that Wolfowitz and/or the US Department of Defence saw an opportunity and an ally in UMAA raises scrutiny. Furthermore Jafri describes Wolfowitz’ speech as “the most comprehensive account of the war in Iraq and heartwarming development taking place in that land” and that Wolfowitz “drove many people in tears…” [4]– bringing into question the reality of the apology, if any. Soon after, Stephen Schwartz published an article in the Front Page Mag, titled “Muslims Cheer for Wolfy”. While Schwartz’ credentials and reliability may be questioned, it was only after the publication of the above-mentioned article and others about UMAA that more than three senior members of UMAA’s management defended Schwartz’ character in the New York Review of Books in late 2003.  Because of Dr. Parvez Shah and others of UMAA defending him, we have concluded that his words about UMAA can be held as reliable.

Schwartz, one of the main subjects and sources of the oppression.org  article, discusses UMAA in his book, and points to alliances that the government attempted to forge with UMAA. Most notable is the case of Larry Franklin, former U.S. Colonel, Pentagon analyst, and convicted Israeli spy– who Schwartz says was put in touch with the UMAA management to discuss the war on Iraq. Beyond the subject of discussion being Iraq, the precise details of Franklin’s dealings with UMAA remain unknown. Franklin’s dealings with UMAA on behalf of the Pentagon, remains to be an issue of controversy, due to the fact that Franklin pleaded guilty and was sentenced in 2006 for being an Israeli spy. Schwartz, in his book Is it Good for the Jews: The Crisis of America’s Israel Lobby also alludes to the possibility that the hours of discussions that Franklin had with these Shia clerics “to discern who would support U.S. policy and how factions in the U.S. community lined up with those in Iraq itself”, was “presumably… handed over to his [Franklin’s] superiors”[5]. The precise details of these discussions are lost to us and can only be speculated. While we know for certain that the views of some of the management certainly supported the Iraq war, it is uncertain what the management brought up with Franklin and how that was used by the Pentagon. Perhaps the Pentagon used the support of some of the management to convince themselves that they were truly helping the Iraqi population- or perhaps, other members of UMAA’s management expressed concern. Perhaps it was something else. Perusing through the magazine, I could only find evidence to suggest the management’s support of the occupation of Iraq, and nothing was uttered against it. Even if unintentional on UMAA’s part, the fact remains that information and dialogue with American officials could have, in some capacity, no matter how miniscule, been used to help justify and strategize on the occupation of Iraq.

Views on the “War-On-Terror” and Invasion of Iraq

In the introduction to UMAA in UMAA’s own Magazine of 2009, Agha Shaukat Jafri states that the first UMAA convention was planned and organized “to honor the liberation of Iraq”. America’s role in bringing Saddam and the Taliban to power is omitted; instead, the so-called war on terror is described as victorious: “U.S. Armed forces, in a matter of weeks identified and then dismantled Al Qaeda and Taliban hooligans from Afghanistan”[6]. It should also be noted that this remains to be factually incorrect, as it was only a few weeks ago that Obama declared Bin Laden’s capture and death. Further- the war against the Taliban continues to rage on in Afghanistan and with drone strikes on Pakistan.

Agha Jafri continues to describe the invasion on Iraq as a feat to be admired: “The people of Iraq were liberated from the cruel claws of Saddam and his blood thirsty clan. Millions of Iraqi citizens celebrated their new found freedom in the streets of Baghdad, Basra, Najaf and Karbala”[7].  Omitted, is the grief of the families of millions of Iraqis who lost their lives in the process—both through the U.S.-backed sanctions that killed half a million children[8], and through Operation Iraqi Freedom, whose death toll increases every day.

Ironically, while UMAA continuously and easily (and rightfully) condemns the Saudi and Bahraini governments for their vast human rights abuses against their Shiite populations, it also continuously praises the same government that strengthens these two regimes. Saudi Arabia remains a key ally of America in the Middle East, and Bahrain is still home to America’s Fifth Fleet. America has as of yet, to do anything substantial about either country’s human right abuses, even in light of the increased repression of Bahrainis Shiite population. As early as 2009, UMAA has campaigned for the Shiites of Bahrain while maintaining amiable relations with the government, and so begins the prologue of the UMAA 2009 magazine: “We are living in the greatest country of the[sic] world”[9]. The success of UMAA’s dialogue with American officials in regards to Bahrain has produced nothing and in other areas, seems flaky at best. Agha Shaukat Jafri cites that UMAA has held “meetings with the U.S Department of Homeland Security pertaining to the deportations and detentions of undocumented Muslims to resolve these cases”, however, goes on to mention its successes pertaining to “visitor visas” of Shiite scholars being reinstated—and nothing else[10]. Other cases concerning Shiites, like that of Hajj Rafic Labboun and Seyed Musawi being brutally treated by the FBI are not mentioned, nor is it known that UMAA has attempted to secure their release. Nevertheless, UMAA has allowed the FBI to promote and recruit at their conferences, conveniently providing a platform for the FBI to further their cause[11].

Promoting a Sectarian Conflict

Documents from UMAA show that the organization plays into the sectarian divide that continues to plague the Muslim community– condemning not America or Israel for their continued atrocities against regions of the Middle East– but concentrating on condemning governments run by Arab Sunni populations. Agha Shaukat Jafri boldly declares that upon arriving in America, the “enemy was neither Christian nor Jewish! It was the fellow Muslim which most of the self loathing[sic] Muslims prefer to ignore.” Describing the conflict as 1400 years old (dating back to the time of the Prophet Muhammad), the piece goes on to claim that after 9/11, Islamic organizations in the US refused to “unite and speak against these acts of terrorism and the criminals who were behind this tragedy” and that “they refused to even acknowledge any guilt, even though majority[sic] of the plane hijackers were found to be other than[sic] Shia Muslims”[12].  This, in itself is factually incorrect and polarizing to a sectarian conflict. The fact remains that after 9/11, numerous organizations, Shiite and Sunni alike, came out to decry the hijackings. On 9/11 and the day after, numerous organizations condemned the attacks- including America’s largest Sunni organization, ISNA, the Islamic Society of North America. CAIR published a 68-page document with these organizations and scholars from across the globe.

Furthermore, why organizations in the US who had nothing to do with 9/11, should acknowledge ‘guilt’ for it, remains unstated. The magazine also fails to mention the intricacies associated with the war-on-terror and polarizes the conflict as being the liberating Americans vs. the blood-thirsty Wahhabis, buying into the rhetoric that a sectarian conflict has existed for over a thousand years—while thanking America for her occupation. A sectarian conflict is not to the advantage of the Shias in Iraq, but instead, to its occupying powers. Even according to Daniel Pipes, a civil war in Iraq “would be a humanitarian tragedy, but not a strategic one”[13].

Contrary to what one may expect, despite UMAA’s apparent dislike of working with other Islamic sects, there is an explicit willingness to work with other faiths- namely Jewish and Christian organizations, considered by Islam to be People of the Book. It is vital to mention here, that in the past, UMAA has had one Sufi speaker, Sheikh Hisham Kabbani in 2004, and speakers present at this conference discussed the importance of unity amongst sects. Unfortunately however, this has not been something that UMAA has adopted in attitude- and a disclaimer has been made that they are not responsible for the views of their speakers[14]. Throughout the years, UMAA has constantly had inter-faith dialogues with various Rabbis and Reverends. In 2009, Rabbi Richard Marker, former Vice President of Hillel International, and Right Reverend John Bryson of the Washington Cathedral took part in a panel[15]. In 2010, a dialogue was held with the Jewish Islamic Dialogue Society.

While most people and Shiites do not view inter-faith dialogue as inappropriate or controversial, it becomes controversial when it becomes political. One such controversy lies in UMAA’s magazine where an UMAA Convention Manager glamourizes the Jewish usage of the Holocaust for empowerment. The Jewish population is admired for its feat in using the Holocaust as a collective memory for empowerment, yet nothing is uttered in terms of how the powerful memory of the Holocaust is mostly manipulated by the state of Israel, and used to justify the continued ethnic cleansing of Palestine[16]. Hasan Syed M. Rizvi, a UMAA Convention Manager of 2009, writes that “We must take the examples of the Holocaust… and comprehend why it has become a centerpiece of passion and a means of identity and survival for our Jewish … friends. They have used something as painful and disgusting as the Holocaust to their own advantage not only to promote their identity but also to maintain their existence”[17].

This is not to say that it is problematic to work with other faiths, or that UMAA’s criticism of the Wahhabi doctrine is incorrect and unfounded– but simply that it is odd they are willing to work so openly with Christian and Jewish organizations, while being so critical of other Islamic sects, failing to mention that Wahhabis remain to be a fringe of the Sunni population. In fact, again in UMAA’s magazine, the then Floor Manager and member of the Board of Directors, Ali Naqvi, states the opposite: “it is becoming difficult to separate the general Sunni population from the Wahabi population. That distinction… is now diminishing each day”(p.60).

And so, concludes the UMAA Magazine’s Epilogue:

“No more, are they [the Shia] going to be marginalized by certain fellow Muslims, who for centuries have been malicious and vindictive towards them… When the dust settles, the center of gravity will no longer lie with the Arab Sunni countries but will be held by the Shia… We are Muslim Americans and we are the followers of Ahlul Bayt so it behooves upon us to be patriotic and productive citizens of our adopted homeland. We must endeavor to do our part so our fellow citizens whether they are Christians, Jewish or people of any other faith, can accept us, respect us and do justice to us regardless of our faith and our background”[18].

The contradiction in UMAA’s thought process is apparent—why should Shiites be patriotic to their ‘adopted homeland’ of America, when it is the very driving force behind the survival of the dictatorial ‘Arab Sunni countries’?

The 2011 Convention in Canada

This year, UMAA surprisingly changed its venue to Canada. While some may believe that this shows a policy change and shift in UMAA`s approach, it is important to look deeper. As early as 2009, UMAA admitted that had opened a “channel of communication” with the governments of America and Canada”[19]. Unfortunately, many individuals are under the impression that the Canadian government is a pleasant alternative to the American one. If this was the case, then UMAA`s change in venue could represent a change in its approach. Perhaps taking advantage of the ignorance of the masses, the unknown John McCallum and Armand La Barge were invited to speak to the congregation. In UMAA’s press release, McCallum is quoted to be “a senior member of parliament”. Unmentioned is that McCallum is also the former Minister of Defence (2002-2003) and was pivotal in shaping Canada and NATO`s continued role in occupying Afghanistan, in the guise of a “peacekeeping mission”.  He is a serving Member of Parliament and member to the Liberal Party. For those unfamiliar with Canadian politics, it is a worthy endeavour to research the views of the Liberal Party of Canada especially in terms of foreign policy, and to know that members of parties must vote within their party lines.

In addition to McCallum, former Toronto police chief Armand La Barge was invited to speak.  Less known to the community is the fact that La Barge has also aligned himself with a few pro-Zionist organizations. In fact, the Canadian Jewish Congress, ardently Zionist and proud-of-it, was the organization who spoke at La Barge’s retirement ceremony, and described him as a “strong friend of the Jewish community” who “quickly condemned manifestations of anti-Semitism”[20]. Unfortunately, La Barge’s definition of anti-Semitism may differ from its actual meaning, and this is evidenced by the fact that La Barge served as a Witness for the CPCCA, the Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Anti-Semitism, which has attempted to criminalize criticism of Israel[21].

Both McCallum and La Barge spoke on a panel with Agha Shomali, a member of staff at Jameatuz-Zahraa, the largest female seminary in the city of Qum, in Iran. While it could be argued that putting McCallum and La Barge on a critical platform could be justified, Agha Shomali is a well-respected, knowledgeable scholar on Islam- not Canadian politics. Further, it is highly likely that the information iterated above was completely unknown to the majority of participants and the community at large. Without researching these characters or appropriately questioning and criticizing them, UMAA has not provided reason to believe that its management is changing its approach from the times of the infamous Wolfowitz speech.

Strategies and Agendas for the Shiite Community

The important question that the Shia community needs to be asking itself, is to whose advantage is UMAA playing into and why? What is UMAA hoping to achieve by engaging these governmental institutions and more importantly, what success has it shown? Jafri mentions two tangible successes that seem rather miniscule:  reinstating visitor visas to Shiite scholars, and being invited to the U.S. State Department Ramadhan Dinner[22].

The pressing situation in Bahrain demands that the Shiites rethink their strategy. While Shiites in Iran and Lebanon have taken power into their own hands, without relying on the help of western countries, the Shiites in America and Canada continue to ask the government for their help. The deafening silence of America on the recent situation in Bahrain, among numerous other examples, is evidence enough to the fact that an open dialogue and relying on the U.S. administration for help has not been an effective strategy. Similarly, the debate over dialogue and so-called peaceful talks has also been the subject of many Palestinian organizations conversing with Israeli ones, and many of the same arguments can apply here[23]. It is argued that instead of benefitting the oppressed, ‘dialogue’ only serves to strengthen the oppressor and their public image. And moreover, that it is morally questionable to engage in dialogue with oppressors, and simply more strategic and effective to boycott.

American Flags on display and being worn as capes, at the protest in solidarity with Bahrain, at the United Nations, New York. (c) Shameel Arafin, March 27 2011

Thus, whilst UMAA provides Paul Wolfowitz, the FBI, and more recently, the former Canadian Minister of Defence with a platform, the question needs to be asked if the Shiite community is benefitting from these meetings, or if it is helping the very system it is trying to defeat. UMAA, willingly or unwillingly, intentionally or unintentionally, has contributed to justifying a so-called war on terror and providing these government officials with a platform to convince the public that they have peaceful aims. Whether it is astounding naiveté or a gross miscalculation of strategy, UMAA’s entire premise, goals and aims, need to be re-evaluated. UMAA is not the only Shiite organization with this type of strategy, nor will it be the last one. Organizations like the Islamic Information Center, who began a formal alliance with UMAA this year, and other community leaders share similar strategies that similarly need to be re-evaluated.

Furthermore, while UMAA continuously tries to distance itself from its past actions and the words of its key members- it is important to ask, what defines UMAA? The magazine, published by UMAA, contains a disclaimer, stating that the “views and opinions expressed in the articles in the Magazine are solely those of the writers and do not represent UMAA, its body or management nor reflect their opinion in any way, form or capacity”. However, the pieces cited here are solely the prologue, epilogue, introduction to UMAA, and articles written by members of the management, who are listed on page two.  It is only logical to decipher that the attitudes and actions of their management are a key part to shaping UMAA’s actions, agendas and views. It would be easy to cast aside all of these views if UMAA clearly pushed another agenda, however, the actions and words of its management seem to be in harmony with the actions and words represented in UMAA. If we cannot study and scrutinize the words and actions of its management, how are we supposed to analyze UMAA? This being said, it is also important to note that those who attend and speak at the conference may share completely different views- how they must be dealt with is something that the Shiite community needs to decide. Nevertheless, it is hoped that with this information on UMAA and its associations, readers will be able to make an informed decision on whether or not UMAA is doing a service or a disservice to the cause of the Shiite community at large.

For any requests, questions, or feedback on this article, the author can be contacted at fate7a@gmail.com

---

[1] Agha Shaukat Jafri, “UMAA: Genesis and Objectives”,  UMAA 2009 Magazine, page 11

[2] For more information about Daniel Pipes and his views, and full access to his past articles,  please refer to his websitewww.danielpipes.org . Also see: Daniel Pipes finds comfort in Muslims killing Muslims

[3] He is titled as the Secretary General of UMAA in a recent appeal to Seyed Khamenei regarding the two remaining American hikers arrested in Iran.  See:http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/21_leading_american_muslims_appeal_to/0018588

[4] Agha Shaukat Jafri, “UMAA: Genesis and Objectives”,  UMAA 2009 Magazine, page 11.

[5] Stephen Schwartz.  Is it Good for the Jews: The Crisis of America’s Israel Lobby,  Page xii

[6] Agha Shaukat Jafri, “UMAA: Genesis and Objectives”,  UMAA 2009 Magazine, page 11.

[7] Ibid, 11

[8] The exact number of children who died due to the imposed sanctions on Iraq is debated. The number ranges from 100 000 – 1 500 000.

[9] “Prologue”,  UMAA Magazine 2009, page 3.

[10] Agha Shaukat Jafri, “UMAA: Genesis and Objectives”,  UMAA 2009 Magazine, page 11.

[11] Although this information has not been cited from the website, several witnesses of the conferences that took place in America can attest to it.

[12] Agha Shaukat Jafri, “UMAA: Genesis and Objectives”,  UMAA 2009 Magazine, page 9-11.

[13] See John Walsh’s “Daniel Pipes finds comfort in Muslims killing Muslims”

[14] See UMAA convention press release, 2004 http://www.umaamerica.net/pdf/convention2004.pdf

[15] UMAA 2009 Convention Recap, http://www.umaamerica.net/pdf/convention2009.pdf

[16] See Noam Chomsky’s discussion on “Israel, the Holocaust, and anti-Semitism” and Edward Said’s “Invention, Memory, and Place”To read a historical account of the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, please read Ilan Pappe’s “The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine”.

[17] Hasan Syed M. Rizvi, “The Genocide Against the Shias”, UMAA Magazine 2009, pages 48-56.

[18] Epilogue, UMAA Magazine 2009, Page 69

[19] Agha Shaukat Jafri, “UMAA: Genesis and Objectives”, UMAA 2009 Magazine, page 11.

[20] “Canadian Jewish Congress Express its Thanks to York Regional Police Chief Armand La Barge”http://www.cjc.ca/2010/04/21/canadian-jewish-congress-expresses-its-thanks-to-york-regional-police-chief-armand-la-barge/

[21] Also see Professor Joanne Naiman’s submission to the CPCCA:  http://www.socialistproject.ca/bullet/270.php

[22] Agha Shaukat Jafri, “UMAA: Genesis and Objectives”, UMAA 2009 Magazine, page 11.

[23] This debate is also one worth reading about, as it touches on ideas of ethics and strategy, certainly applicable here. See pages 205-210 of The Veritas Handbook, available for download at www.veritashandbook.org

Advertisement