Ummah is an Arabic word meaning "community" or "nation". It is commonly used to mean either the collective nation of states [i.e. tribes with flags], or (in the context of pan-Arabism) the whole Arab world. In the context of Islam, the word ummah is used to mean the diaspora or "Community of the Believers" (ummat al-mu'minin), and thus the whole Muslim world.
I thought this guy looked familiar. Obama's Envoy to the Ummah is the second Muslim-Omerican to appear in this June 2009 White House video.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/video/Muslim-Americans-Serving-in-the-US-Government
"My name is Rashad Hussain. I work in the White House Counsel's Office as one of the Deputy Associate Counsels to the President. That makes me a lawyer. (Laughs)"
Also available at YouTube.
And check out this fascinating excerpt - from a post at RBOBlog. It reads like The Won's Foreign Policy Checklist for the Middle East!
Rashad Hussain, named to Deputy Associate Counsel to the President, was previously a trial attorney at the Department of Justice.
-
It should come as no surprise that Rashad Hussain, a Muslim-American, was a 2003 Paul and Daisy Soros Fellowship for New Americans recipient. At the time he was clerking in Detroit, Michigan, at the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
[Paul Soros is George's older brother.]
In an August 2008 Brookings Institution paper on counterterrorism Rashad Hussain, U.S. Court of Appeals, and Al-Husein N. Madhany, Executive Vice President, One Nation; Senior Fellow, Homeland Security Policy Institute, wrote:
First, rather than characterizing counterterrorism efforts as “freedom and democracy versus terrorist ideology,” policymakers should instead frame the battle of ideas as a conflict between terrorist elements in the Muslim world and Islam.
Second, policymakers should reject the use of language that provides a religious legitimization of terrorism such as “Islamic terrorism” and “Islamic extremist.” They should replace such terminology with more specific and descriptive terms such as “Al-Qaeda terrorism.”
Third, the United States should seek to build a broad and diverse coalition of partners, not limited to those who advocate Western-style democracy, and avoid creating a dichotomy between freedom and Islamic society. Such a coalition should incorporate those who may have political differences, so long as they reject terrorism.
Fourth, the United States should enlist the assistance of scholars of Islam and the Muslim world to determine how best to frame the mission of the global counterterrorism mission. Rather than framing the conflict as “pro-freedom” or “anti-Jihadist,” these scholars should analyze the most persuasive methods for applying Islamic law to reject terrorism.
Fifth, the United States should incorporate the Muslim community as well as scholars of Islam and of the Muslim world in the policymaking process to help craft policies that reflect a more nuanced understanding of those targeted.
Sixth, the United States should promote and distribute scholarship such as the North American Muslims Scholars’ Fatwa against Terrorism and the Aal al-Bayt Institute’s anti-terrorism rulings, which carefully analyze issues such as the use of force in Islam and conclude that terrorism must be rejected unequivocally.
Seventh, recognizing the benefit of strengthening the authoritative voices of mainstream Islam, the United States should welcome and encourage the further development of mainstream Muslim organizations and moderate institutions.
Finally, the United States should continue to promote effective economic and social reforms and to work with allies in crafting fair and peaceful resolutions to conflicts in the Middle East and in other parts of the Muslim world, as these conflicts are often the preeminent grievances fueling extremist violence.
In an Islamica Magazine article on reforming the Supreme Court, Rashad Hussain, then a joint degree student at Yale School of Law and the Harvard Kennedy School of Government, wrote:
-
Our system is broken. After a period of 11 years without any Court appointments, recent vacancies once again raise questions regarding the wisdom of allowing one president to shape the long-term direction of the Court with multiple lifetime appointments. As the war on terrorism escalates and the rights of Muslims, African-Americans, Arab-Americans, and other minority communities hang in the balance, federal courts will continue to serve as a forum for a number of important civil rights struggles. A system that does not guarantee a periodic infusion of Justices runs the risk of one party taking the Court in its own direction with lifetime appointments.
Comments