When a Muslim is Singled Out for Denial of US Visa

by Vidya Subrahmaniam

“I can’t go the U.S., my name is Haq,” says his blog.

Zia Haq, an Assistant Editor with Hindustan Times, was part of a seven-member journalist delegation invited to participate in a week-long technology and farm show that began on August 28 at Iowa in the United States.

However, with the U.S. embassy inexplicably suspending the processing of his visa, Mr. Haq had to drop out of the tour at the last minute. He feels singled out because, as he says in his blog, “all other journalists in the delegation were promptly granted visas…What prompted this? My religion? My faith? My views? But I have never been a consistent, rabid or vocal opponent of America…” The other journalists were able to reach the U.S. for the show.

Was Mr. Haq a victim of religious profiling as he appears to suggest in his blog? The bias is difficult to establish given the litany of general complaints relating to delayed and denied U.S. visas. Yet, Mr. Haq was picked out from a group, which fact does not change even if he should get a visa in the coming days. It is this aspect that discomfits Muslim intellectuals who point to a string of similar cases.

In September 2008, for instance, U.S. visa authorities delayed processing the application of Haider Hussain, Editor of Assam’s largest daily, Asomiya Pratidin.

The astonishing thing about this case is that Mr. Hussain was part of the media delegation accompanying PM Manmohan Singh to the U.S. and France.

Like Mr. Haq, he was the only one from the group picked out for additional background checks.

In the summer of 2009, a Muslim engineer working with a North-Eastern hydro-power PSU was the only one of a delegation of engineers on a visit to the Hoover Dam who did not get a U.S. visa. The engineer was allowed to join his team after a strong representation from the delegation.

More recently, in June 2010, Faiyaz Khudsar, a wildlife biologist with 15 years experience in wildlife conservation and working with Delhi University, shot off a letter to U.S. Ambassador Timothy Roemer, saying he alone was denied a visa from a group of 11 people selected from India for a training programme on tiger conservation at the Smithsonian facilities in Virginia. As he told CNN-IBN: “Probably, it is my name or religion — I do not know. It was an important visit.”

The subject of U.S. visas for Muslims came up at a February 2010 meeting between Delhi’s Muslim intelligentsia and U.S. Special Representative for Muslim countries, Farah Pandith. The gathering told her plainly that the Obama administration had fallen short of expectations on granting visas to Indian Muslims.

Ghulam Nabi Qazi, Vice-Chancellor of the Jamia Hamdard University, said that as a scientist he would only believe the Obama administration if there was evidence of change on the ground. He said while he did not want to make a fuss, he had himself been denied a U.S visa while working as a director with the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR).

The tour which Mr. Haq missed out was jointly organised by Crop Life International, Crop Life Asia and the multi-national Association of Biotech-Led Enterprises — Special Interest Group on Agriculture Biotechnology (ABLE-SIGAB). The invitation was sent out to the newspaper offices by ABLE-SIGAB, whose members include Monsanto, Bayer, BASF, Devgen, Dow, and DuPont. Mr. Haq, who has visited many countries, including Israel, was nominated by his paper to attend the show.

A written sheet given to Mr. Haq said his visa application had been suspended for further administrative processing under Section 221(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

The U.S. embassy does not provide additional details or reveal the case status in cases with a 221(g) notation. “This processing is mandatory and cannot be expedited,” says the embassy website.

Published by alaiwah

ALAIWAH'S PHILOSOPHY About 12 years ago, while studying Arabic in Cairo, I became friends with some Egyptian students. As we got to know each other better we also became concerned about each other’s way of life. They wanted to save my soul from eternally burning in hell by converting me to Islam. I wanted to save them from wasting their real life for an illusory afterlife by converting them to the secular worldview I grew up with. In one of our discussions they asked me if I was sure that there is no proof for God’s existence. The question took me by surprise. Where I had been intellectually socialized it was taken for granted that there was none. I tried to remember Kant’s critique of the ontological proof for God. “Fine,” Muhammad said, “but what about this table, does its existence depend on a cause?” “Of course,” I answered. “And its cause depends on a further cause?” Muhammad was referring to the metaphysical proof for God’s existence, first formulated by the Muslim philosopher Avicenna. Avicenna argues, things that depend on a cause for their existence must have something that exists through itself as their first cause. And this necessary existent is God. I had a counter-argument to that to which they in turn had a rejoinder. The discussion ended inconclusively. I did not convert to Islam, nor did my Egyptian friends become atheists. But I learned an important lesson from our discussions: that I hadn’t properly thought through some of the most basic convictions underlying my way of life and worldview — from God’s existence to the human good. The challenge of my Egyptian friends forced me to think hard about these issues and defend views that had never been questioned in the milieu where I came from. These discussions gave me first-hand insight into how deeply divided we are on fundamental moral, religious and philosophical questions. While many find these disagreements disheartening, I will argue that they can be a good thing — if we manage to make them fruitful for a culture debate. Can we be sure that our beliefs about the world match how the world actually is and that our subjective preferences match what is objectively in our best interest? If the truth is important to us these are pressing questions. We might value the truth for different reasons: because we want to live a life that is good and doesn’t just appear so; because we take knowing the truth to be an important component of the good life; because we consider living by the truth a moral obligation independent of any consequences; or because we want to come closer to God who is the Truth. Of course we wouldn’t hold our beliefs and values if we weren’t convinced that they are true. But that’s no evidence that they are. Weren’t my Egyptian friends just as convinced of their views as I was of mine? More generally: don’t we find a bewildering diversity of beliefs and values, all held with great conviction, across different times and cultures? If considerations such as these lead you to concede that your present convictions could be false, then you are a fallibilist. And if you are a fallibilist you can see why valuing the truth and valuing a culture of debate are related: because you will want to critically examine your beliefs and values, for which a culture of debate offers an excellent setting.

2 thoughts on “When a Muslim is Singled Out for Denial of US Visa

  1. ITS TIME TO… JOIN HANDS and Fight back terrorism …

    One thing … Indian Muslims are different in every aspects.. cannot be treated like others…

    We are peace loving once … And we proved it with the Ayodha Verdict…

    YOU ME AND ALL INDIAN MUSLIMS.. ARE PEACE LOVING AND DIFFERENT!!

    Lets Fight terrorism hard…..

Leave a comment