Racial Profiling of Shahrukh Khan Is Nothing New to Many Muslim-Americans

The immensely popular Bollywood actor (read: superstar) and global icon, Shahrukh Khan/King Khan/SRK, recently told the press that he felt angry and humiliated after he was detained and “questioned” at a US airport for over two hours.  In a text message to reporters in India, Khan said, “I was really hassled perhaps because of my name being Khan. These guys just wouldn’t let me through.”  Khan, who is a Muslim, also called the incident “absolutely uncalled for” and pointed out that he was only released after he contacted the Indian Consulate.

Much is being said about the SRK’s encounter with Islamophobia, especially since he is promoting his upcoming film, “My Name is Khan,” which, ironically,  is about the racial profiling of Muslims.  Much is also being said about fans being outraged and how fellow Bollywood superstars are expressing their disapproval.  However, very little to nothing is being said about how many Muslim-Americans have been experiencing discrimination, hate crimes, racial profiling, vandalism, and negative stigma ever since 9/11.

There’s no doubt that SRK’s experience at least puts racial profiling of Muslims in the spotlight, but what if he wasn’t a Bollywood star?  What if, in the eyes of society, he was just an “ordinary” Indian Muslim man visiting the United States?  How long would he have been detained and questioned for?  His story would be left untold and unheard, just like the countless stories of many Muslims, as well as non-Muslim South Asians and Middle-Easterners (since they “look Muslim” according to Orientalist stereotypes), who have experienced similar, if not worse, encounters with Islamophobia and discrimination.

The reality is that Islamophobia is hardly even recognized as a real social problem within the United States.  The term “Islamophobia” is scarcely used by the mainstream media, let alone by most American politicians, despite all of the shameless anti-Muslim bigotry and hatred we saw during the presidential campaigns (and still see from racist right-wing extremists).  There are many who argue that Islamophobia “does not really exist,” and while most of this is heard from the likes of Michael Savage, Daniel Pipes, and Salman Rushdie, there are many others, including social justice academics, who have not implemented the subject of Islamophobia in their universities.  To put it simply, the failure to recognize Islamophobia as a real social problem diminishes how serious and prevalent it truly is.

In light of Shahrukh Khan’s experience with racial profiling in the US, let’s take a moment to reflect on the stories that we have not heard before — stories from Muslim-Americans, South Asian-Americans, and Middle-Eastern-Americans (and others as well), who are not movie stars or celebrities, and do not have the “starpower” to capture media and public attention.

Along with the Human Rights Watch, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) observed that prior to 9/11, forty-eight hate crimes against Muslim-Americas were reported in the United States, but in the days following the attacks, that figure skyrocketed to 481.  Reported incidents of discrimination, harassment, and violence against Muslims amounted to 602 in 2002, 1,019 in 2004, 1,522 in 2004, 1,972 in 2005, and 2,467 in 2006.  The context of these hate crimes and incidents consist of murders, physical and verbal assaults, and numerous cases of vandalism directed towards Mosques, convenience stores owned by Muslims, and homes.  Many reports included these same hate crimes and discriminatory acts towards non-Muslim South Asians and Middle-Easterners as well.

Four days after 9/11, Mark Stroman entered a grocery store in Dallas, Texas, and shot and killed Waquar Hassan, a forty-six-year-old Pakistani father of four.  Unfounded by the police, Stroman entered a convenience store in Mesquite, Texas less than a month later, and murdered Vasudev Patel, a non-Muslim Indian father of two.  Stroman was finally arrested, and before being convicted and sentenced to death, he stated in an interview:  “We’re at war.  I did what I had to do.  I did it to retaliate against those who retaliated against us.”

The next year, a man named Frank Roque boasted at a local bar that he was going to “kill the ragheads responsible for September 11^th.” A few days later he shot and killed Balbir Singh Sodi, a forty-nine-year old father of three.  When arrested for murder, Roque declared: “I stand for America all the way!  I’m an American.  Go ahead.  Arrest me and let those terrorists run wild.”  Little did Roque know that the turbaned man he killed was not an Arab or a Muslim, but an Indian Sikh.

Other incidents in the immediate days and months following 9/11 included attempted murder upon a Palestinian male who was shot at after leaving his Mosque in Seattle, a Pakistani woman who was nearly run over by a car in the parking lot of a New York mall, and an American Muslim women who was nearly choked to death by her attacker in Texas.

An Islamic Center in Irving, Texas, was fired upon, leaving thirteen to fourteen bullet holes on the building, while another Mosque in Central Ohio was severely vandalized:  the bathroom pipe was broken, the sink was clogged, causing it to overflow for hours and eventually leaking into the second floor prayer hall; frames of religious verses were torn, a chandelier in the prayer hall was destroyed, high-mounted speakers and amplifiers were thrown to the ground, Islamic posters were torn from classroom walls, curtains and drapes were pulled down, bookcases and file cabinets were tipped over, approximately one hundred copies of the Qur’an was thrown to the floor; one of them was torn and placed in the parking lot.  The damage to the Mosque was estimated at $379,000.

In April of 2006, a Muslim woman and college student was followed, beaten, and stripped of her headscarf while her male perpetrator shouted anti-Muslim slurs.  She was hospitalized for contusions and a dislocated shoulder.  Also in 2006, a Muslim man in New York was beaten with brass knuckles by a group of five teenagers after exiting “Dunkin’ Donuts”; he was called a “terrorist” by the assailants and was later hospitalized for a broken nose and severely bruised ribs.

In September of 2007, Zohreh Assemi, an Iranian Muslim-American and owner of a nail salon in New York, was robbed, brutally beaten, and called a “terrorist.” The report describes the details:

Assemi was kicked, sliced with a boxcutter, and had her hand smashed with a hammer. The perpatrators, who forcibly removed $2,000 from the saloon and scrawled anti-Muslim slurs on the mirrors, also told Assemi to “get out of town” and that her kind were not “welcomed” in the area. The attack followed two weeks of phone calls in which Iranian-American Zohreh Assemi was called a “terrorist” and told to “get out of town,” friends and family said.

In 2009, AirTran Airways “removed nine Muslim passengers, including three children, from a flight and turned them over to the FBI after one of the men commented to another that they were sitting right next to the engines and wondered aloud where the safest place to sit on the plane was.”  Also this year, a Muslim woman, Marwa El-Sherbini, was stabbed to death in a courtroom in Germany while being three months pregnant.  The attacker, Alex W., was a non-Muslim man that El-Sherbini was testifying against because of his Islamophobic remarks towards her.  In other words, she was killed for standing up for herself.

Are these reports new to you?  For many readers, I’m sure they are.  More details on the reports mentioned above, along with countless others, can be read in the following document by the Human Rights Watch:  “We Are Not The Enemy:  Hate Crimes Against Arabs, Muslims, and Those Perceived to be Arab or Muslim after September 11.” These reports do not even cover the number of innocent Muslims who have been abducted and detained in detention centers like Guantanamo bay.

The truth is that Islamophobia has an immense impact on many Muslims in the West, no matter what kind of discrimination they may or may not have experienced.  Harsh stares, verbal abuse, or even ignorant questions also need to be factored in to understand the Muslim experience in the post 9/11 world.  From a journal I studied a year ago titled, “The Effects of Discrimination and Constraints Negotiation on Leisure Behavior of American Muslims in the Post-September 11 America” by Jennifer S. Livengood and Monika Stodolska, all 25 Muslim participants (from diverse ethnic backgrounds) reported that their lifestyles and leisure activities (praying in public, jogging, traveling, outings with or without families, experiences in workplaces and school, etc.) was significantly affected and reduced by Islamophobia.  Some shared how they felt “otherized” after seeing signs that read, “Kill all the Arabs,” and others shared how they couldn’t jog through the park anymore without someone calling them a “terrorist” or telling them to “go back home.”  Some Muslims even expressed reluctance to share their Muslim identity or even pray in public because of their fear of Islamophobia.  Just recently, Al-Jazeera confirmed a report that FBI spies infiltrated Mosques to monitor Muslim-Americans.  At the end of the video clip, a young Muslim man shares how many Muslims are terrified to attend the Mosque because of this.

I have seen this fear with my own interactions with Muslims, including my own family.  Some in my family do not like disclosing their ethnic and religious identity to people because they want to avoid the prejudice and stereotypes.  These are stories that are not even known by most non-Muslims and never addressed by the mainstream media.

Shahrukh Khan may have encountered Islamophobia at the Newark airport, but will his status as a celebrity put the issue of Islamophobia in the spotlight?  As mentioned above, his upcoming film, “My Name is Khan,” is about racial profiling against Muslims, but only time will tell to see what kind of impact that will have on the general public’s attitude and perception of Muslims and Islam.  Regardless of SRK’s experiences, the fact of the matter remains that the Muslim lifestyle is very politicized, and has been ever since 9/11, even if the individual does not wish to discuss politics or social issues.  Muslims are still asked to answer for crimes that they never committed, they still face the daily vilification of their way of life in the mainstream media, they are still stereotyped, discriminated against, and victims of hate crimes, vandalism, and verbal abuse.

If Islamophobia is not taken more seriously or spoken out against, more stories will be forgotten, more people will suffer, and the next generation of Muslims will be born into societies that already have negative, hateful, and/or insensitive attitudes towards Muslims and Islam.  By ignoring Islamophobia, we are ignoring the struggle of our fellow human beings, as well as our own responsibility to speak out against injustice wherever it occurs.

The Clarion Fund’s Film Jihad Against “Islamism”

This brilliant exposé of the Clarion Fund’s Islamophobic propaganda film was written by Azeezah, originally published at Muslim Lookout.

From the same team that gave America Relentless: The Struggle for Peace in the Middle East and the award-winning Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West comes a new blockbuster “documentary”: The Third Jihad: Radical Islam’s Vision for America. Undeterred by the thorough debunking Obsession received following its mass distribution in American newspapers last year (financed by the eminently shady Clarion Fund), producer Raphael Shore and director Wayne Kopping are back with more of the same in their latest offering.

The Third Jihad’s vortex of fear-mongering centers on the Muslim Brotherhood’s so-called “Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Plan For the Group in North America,” a document dating back to 1991 that supposedly outlines the Muslim Brotherhood’s manifesto of “grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western Civilization from within.” (The memorandum is available exclusively on the website of Steve Emerson’s Investigative Project on Terrorism.) The Third Jihad premiered in Canada on Wednesday May 20 to a sold-out crowd at Toronto’s Eglinton Grand theatre; I attended the premiere to discover what my “radical” co-religionists envision for America. As the film’s narrator Dr. Zuhdi Jasser so ominously put it, “We all know about terrorism; this is the war you don’t know about.”

An exhaustive treatment of the film’s contents lies beyond the limits of this piece, and so what follows is an assessment of its most salient assertions and an analysis of the function those claims serve in The Third Jihad’s broader propagandic narrative.

“Where are the Muslims? Where are they in speaking out and condemning terrorism?” – Dr. Zuhdi Jasser

In Good Muslim, Bad Muslim: America, the Cold War, and the Roots of Terror, anthropologist Mahmood Mamdani described the American endeavor to discriminate the “good” Muslim from the “bad” Muslim. This distinction is political, rather than religious or theological: as Mamdani explained, “Even when Bush speaks of ‘good’ Muslims and ‘bad’ Muslims, what he means by ‘good’ Muslims is really pro-American Muslims and by ‘bad’ Muslims he means anti-American Muslims.” The Third Jihad shamelessly exploits this bifurcative dynamic to cast suspicion on the majority of the American Muslim community – belying its opening disclaimer that it is only about the “small percentage” of Muslims embodying “the threat of radical Islam” – while propping up its Muslim cheerleader for American neo-conservatism, Dr. Zuhdi Jasser.

Dr. Jasser, founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD), is The Third Jihad’s narrator and central protagonist. He is described in the film as “a devout Muslim,” as if his pious Muslim-ness qualifies him to speak authoritatively on global and local Islamic politics and history (it obviously doesn’t, given the quality of the political and historical analysis The Third Jihad offers; see sections below). Moreover, it is obvious that what characterizes Dr. Jasser as a “good” Muslim is not his devotion to his religion, but rather his uncritical devotion to the neo-conservative agenda: AIFD’s list of core principles includes an affirmation that “as United States citizens we support our American armed forces,” and expresses a commitment to “work to express the consistency of the principles of Islam with economic principles of free markets and capitalism.” The film ends with an American-as-apple-pie scene of Dr. Jasser playing soccer with his children and exhorting people to “stand up for the freedoms and liberties our forefathers fought to create.”

The Third Jihad’s promotional material bills Zuhdi Jasser as “the one person who is not afraid to tell you the truth” about “the jihadist quest to rule America.” He is also apparently the only Muslim willing to condemn terrorism: “Where are the Muslims?” Dr. Jasser wonders in the film. “Where are they in speaking out and condemning terrorism?” (To relieve his bewilderment he could refer to the lists of anti-terrorism statements issued by Muslim leaders and organizations, compiled by Rabbi Arthur Waskow and Sheila Musaji.) Mainstream American Muslim organizations, including the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), and the Muslim Students Assocation (MSA) are cast in the role of “bad” Muslim, working to undermine Western society from within while deceptively “presenting themselves as moderate.” While it is true that the Muslim Brotherhood named ISNA and the MSA as possibly friendly organizations in their putative “General Strategic Plan,” the film gives no evidence to suggest that the organizations are indeed participants in the Brotherhood’s nefarious “grand jihad” plot, or are vitiating American society in any other way.

The Third Jihad’s portrayal of the American Muslim community as a towering fifth column is a potemkin construct of half-truths. For instance: The film shows extensive footage of the Islamic Thinkers Society (ITS) proclaiming their desire to institute Shariah law in America, but it doesn’t reveal that the ITS membership is “less than a handfull [sic] of Muslims” localized in Jackson Heights, New York City. The film asperses CAIR because it was founded in 1994 by three former leaders of the Islamic Association for Palestine (described as a front group for Hamas), but it conveniently neglects to mention that support for Hamas wasn’t illegal when the CAIR founders were IAP members.

“In today’s context there are actually two different types of jihad. There’s the violent jihad, where the Islamists use violence and terror to try and overthrow their enemy. And then there’s what has been termed the cultural jihad, where these Islamists use in a most duplicitous way the laws and the rights they are given in our society to try and work against society and overthrow it.” – Dr. Zuhdi Jasser

The promotional material accompanying The Third Jihad notifies that “radical Islamists are taking advantage of the United States of America’s democratic processes, and using them to destroy the American way of life.” The film provides several sinister (European) instances of this “cultural jihad”: toy pigs being banned in a British office because they offended a Muslim employee; Burger King recalling a desert because its logo resembled the Arabic script for “Allah;” a Turkish lawyer attempting to sue a soccer team because its jerseys displayed a Crusader-like cross. (Interestingly, Barbara Kay trots out many of the same examples in her National Post article on “soft jihad.”)

While these cases may indicate the oversensitivity of individual Muslims to insult of Islam, they are hardly signs of a concerted strategy to “try and work against society and overthrow it,” much less the most serious current threat to liberal democracy and society. If a ban on toy pigs is a troubling assault on rights and freedoms, then where do you rank the USA PATRIOT Act, which permitted the indefinite detention of non-citizens upon secret evidence and extensive government surveillance of communications? Or the judgment of Guantanamo inmates in secretive military commissions, contravening all notions of fair trial? Is the American state also waging a “jihad” on Western civilization?

“The clash between Islam and Christendom has now been going on for 14 centuries.” – Dr. Bernard Lewis

The Third Jihad condenses 1400 years of Islam into three jihads, rendering history thus: The first jihad was the 7^th century spread of Islam out of Arabia (and “that was obviously not done by peaceful persuasion,” comments Bernard Lewis), and the second jihad was the Ottoman expansion beginning in the 15^th c. CE. According to Zuhdi Jasser, “we’re [currently] in the third and final phase of their mission to bring about the domination of their version of Islam.” The graphic accompanying this cobbled-together history shows a map progressively covered by metastasizing star-and-crescent symbols, until the whole world is dominated by Islam. This domination is portrayed as a cumulative process, leaving one with the erroneous impression that the Ottoman Empire still exists and controls significant portions of the globe. One is also left puzzling when the Islamists conquered the continents of South America, Australia, Asia, and Africa, since the film deals mainly with North America and Europe.

Edward Said remarked in Orientalism that the Orientalists (including Bernard Lewis) saw Islam as a “ ‘cultural synthesis’ . . . that could be studied apart from the economics, sociology, and politics of the Islamic peoples . . . The impact of colonialism, of worldly circumstances, of historical development: all these were to the Orientalists as flies to wanton boys, killed – or disregarded – for their sport.” And so The Third Jihad draws straight, spurious lines of continuity from the Ottoman Empire to the modern day, blithely ignoring pesky historical “flies” such as the emergence of the modern system of nation-states, the colonial and post-colonial encounters between “Islam” and “the West,” the Cold War, and the processes of modernization and globalization that have been so instrumental in shaping the contours of political Islam. Juan Eduardo Campo makes an incisive analogy: “One can only imagine the objections that would be raised if a respected American Studies scholar were to interpret Chicano or African American gang activity in American cities in terms of ancient Aztec or African warrior religions, while neglecting to discuss the immediate social, cultural, and economic causes.”

Provided with no description of the different ways Islam has been interpreted and enacted throughout its history, the unfortunate viewer of The Third Jihad is left to imagine that the “version of Islam” spread through subsequent jihads is synonymous with the worst behaviors of Muslims documented in the film: extremism, oppression, and intolerance. (Incidentally, the branch of Islam that seems to constitute The Third Jihad’s greatest concern – Wahhabism – only achieved prominence in the early 20^th c. CE, a period entirely elided in the film’s telescoped history. Wahhabism was considered a form of heresy by the 18^th-century Ottoman Empire.) Moreover, the film’s insinuation that Islam as a religion was spread purely by the sword is misleading: even Daniel Pipes notes that in the prevailing classical conception of jihad, its purpose was “political, not religious. It aim[ed] not so much to spread the Islamic faith as to extend sovereign Muslim power.” Bernard Lewis’ castigation of the Muslim empires for using means other than “peaceful persuasion” to expand is historically anachronistic – is there any empire which extended its sovereign power without using force?

The film situates this piecemeal history within a cosmic clash between two “religiously-defined civilizations” which will only end when “they [the Muslims] triumph universally” (according to Bernard Lewis). The “clash of civilizations” thesis has been discredited ad nauseum (see, for instance, Francis Robinson’s “Islam and the West: Clash of Civilizations?”), so I will refrain from entering into a full rebuttal of it in this piece. However, one wonders if Zuhdi Jasser realizes that if Bernard Lewis was correct – that the “Islamic” and “Western” civilizations really are fundamentally incompatible – his dream of creating “a world where my children can grow up, and there’s no conflict in their hearts between being American and being Muslim” would be unattainable.

“The real war is not a war against a bunch of terrorists. It’s a war between the values of freedom and democracy, and the values of barbarism.” – Dr. Tawfik Hamid, “former Jamaa Islameia terrorist”

The Third Jihad plays as fast and loose with contemporary politics as it does with history to extend its Manichean grand narrative to the current age. Sundry conflicts are stripped of their contexts and presented as fronts in a unified Islamist movement. In Dr. Jasser’s analysis, “When we look at the conflicts in India, Chechnya, Indonesia, Gaza, Iraq, Somalia, and countless other countries,” what’s at root is “the quest for Islam to become the dominant religion.” No allusion is made to the history of violence between Muslims and Hindus in India, or the brutal repression of Chechen separatists by the Russian government, or America’s pre-emptive war in Iraq, or the 60-year Israel/Palestine conflict. The Muslim actors in these theaters are robbed of all rational political motivation: “It’s an entire movement,” states Rudy Giuliani, “and the idea of it is hatred for our way of life.”

But as writer Melanie Phillips suggests in The Third Jihad, “surely it’s more sensible to look at what they [radical Muslims] actually say they’re doing.” For example, Al-Qaeda’s 1998 declaration of jihad “against the Jews and the Crusaders” outlined three goals of the jihad: the withdrawal of American troops from Saudi Arabia, an end to sanctions against Iraq, and the establishment of Islamic control over holy sites in Jerusalem. These objectives were obviously not driven by abhorrence for American “freedom and democracy,” but rather by specific elements of American foreign policy that have crippled freedom and democracy in parts of the Muslim world. Portraying the situation as an ineluctable “clash of civilizations” – in which the enemy “hates us for what we are, not what we do” – may provide absolution for America, but it does nothing to address the root causes that give rise to violence. Obviously violent Islamism and anti-Americanism do exist, but The Third Jihad mischaracterizes both its motivations and its scale.

“Islamism is like cancer. You either defeat it or it will defeat you.” – Dr. Tawfik Hamid

Ironically, The Third Jihad mirrors the “us-against-them” logic and rhetoric of the anti-American radical Islam it so decries. And its farrago of innuendo and half-truth is extremely persuasive. Following the screening, a member of the audience stood up and drew a parallel between Islamism and Nazism, arguing that Islamists have to be destroyed as the Nazis were – a dangerous proposition, considering the blurry line the film draws between radical Islamists and the rest of us Muslims. But that is the inescapable conclusion of The Third Jihad’s perverted message. If the dog is to be put down, it must first be declared sick.

Egyptian-born American Muslim to advise White House

This is a post from a couple of weeks ago, but I still thought it was worth sharing.  Written by Marwa Awad, originally published on Al-Arabiya News.

The first Muslim scarf-wearing woman appointed to a position in President Barack Obama’s administration met with lawmakers Monday and discussed her role on an interfaith advisory board the new administration hopes will broaden dialogue and understanding.

Dalia Mogahed’s dimpled smile shined from under her hijab, the Muslim headscarf, as she addressed senate staff and think tanks at a meeting organized by the Congressional Muslims Staffers Association to discuss American Muslim public opinion in the wake of a recent survey.

The Egyptian-born American who heads the Gallup American Center for Muslim Studies, a non-governmental research center providing data-driven analysis on the views of Muslim populations around the world, became the first Muslim veiled woman to be appointed to a position in the White House.

“I am very honored to be given this opportunity to serve my country in this way,” Mogahed, who will be Obama’s window into the Muslim American community, told AlArabiya.net.

Last month, Obama signed an executive order setting up a new body at the White House called the “Office of Religious Partnerships” to support religious institutions and strengthen inter-faith dialogue and government ties. The advisory group, consisting of 25 religious and secular representatives, is to report to the president on the role religion can play in resolving social problems and addressing civil rights issues.

“The key idea of the council is to tap into the energy and wisdom of religious organisations and leaders who focus on faith groups to solve common problems,” explained Mugahed.

Mogahed will brief Obama on what Muslims want from the U.S. in a bid to create channels of communication and correct the erroneous image of Muslim Americans.

The advisory group will help define issues of concern to religious constituents including the effects of economic crisis on minority groups and the phenomenon of fatherless families. It will also seek to reduce the number of abortions and strengthen inter-faith relations between Muslims and Christians.

“The main premise behind the council is cooperation between faiths and helping them become a force that helps push society forward,” said Mogahed. “These societal challenges are shared by all faith-based groups and it is our task to unite them against common challenges.”

Mugahed will keep her full time job at Gallup while serving as an advisor.

Qualified

Mogahed’s appointment comes at a critical time given the rising tide of Islamophobia in the media and within some academic circles.

“I am very happy that Dalia was asked to be part of this advisory group because she represents a unique position,” Jihad Saleh Williams, from Congressional Muslim Staffers Association, told AlArabiya.net.

Mogahed coauthored the book with John L. Esposito which covered findings from 40 countries

“There is always the question of who are the experts? Who speaks about Muslims? That is on the minds of policy makers and people in general,” said Williams. “Dalia knows the Muslim community and all that she says comes from her work at Gallup, which is fact-based and is the opposite of the ‘experts’ we often see on TV who speak, not based on facts, but on ideology. Dalia is the fact-based alternative to that,” he explained.

As a senior researcher and executive director of the Gallup Center with a chemical engineering and business administration background, Mogahed headed studies on Muslim public opinion worldwide. Her studies and resulting statistics have been quoted in prominent media such as the Wall Street Journal, Foreign Policy magazine, Middle East Policy and the Harvard International Review.

In 2008, she co-authored woth John L. Esposito “Who speaks on behalf of Islam? What a Billion Muslims Really Think,” the largest and most comprehensive study of the Muslim public opinion around the world.

Changing image of Muslims in America

The first Muslim advisor appointed by the White House marks the beginning of an opportunity for Muslims to seriously engage in public policy and contribute to developing solutions to social challenges.

“American Muslims have ideas and should participate in the development of solutions that serve their country and it is important that they get the opportunity to do so,” Mogahed said.

She hopes to counter stereotypes of Muslims as extremists and sources of unrest that have gained ground in recent years in the wake of U.S.-led wars in two Muslim countries.

As for being the first veiled woman in the White House, Mogahed said the veil was a non-issue in the process of hiring; that her appointment was based on Obama`s interest in hearing from Muslims and her ability to provide that information through her work at Gallup.

“Hijab was not an issue. What the Obama administration is after is sound advice on how to engage American citizens in a common cause,” Mogahed said.

There are currently two full time Muslim hires in the White House, though neither hold high-ranking political positions. However Williams said that the Obama administration is generally behind on appointments and that the Muslim community, like other groups, has submitted resume books it hope will be consulted as more staffing decisions are made throughout the summer.

Hoagland’s Hogwash: Islamophobia in the Washington Post

by Guest Contributor Fatemeh Fakhraie, originally published on Racialicious.

Jim Hoagland’s April 12, 2009 article for The Washington Post, entitled “The War Within Islam,” is the best example of “journalistic” Islamophobia I’ve seen in a reputable news source in quite a while. Hoagland has written for The Washington Post for several years, and his focus is on both national and international politics.

But in all his time at the Post, this is the first time he’s ever shown editorial concern for Muslim women. In fact, it’s only the second time he’s focused on Muslim women at all: in 2005, he wrote about the gains that Iraqi women gained in the 2005 elections. These two articles alone reflect a heavy-handed political paternalism that is amplified when he discusses the position of women in predominately Muslim societies. Get ready to see some serious faking concern for women to mask and justify martial occupation!

On a serious note, Hoagland opens by describing the recent video of a Pakistani girl being publicly whipped. This was a horrific occurrence, and no one should be made to suffer this way, publicly or privately. But Hoagland’s use of this video to illustrate the “brutality” of the local Taliban is misplaced because he ends up casting an illustrative net so wide that it catches all Muslim and Southwest Asian men, dehumanizing all instead of only a few. Which one is worse, I’m not sure.

While Hoagland attempted to differentiate between Islam and the political entities he discusses in last Sunday’s article by using specifics (“the Taliban’s version of Islamic law”; “Fanatical Islamic sects have framed their battle in holy terms and seek to destroy their faith’s mainstream values.”), any delineation is lost in his judgment-laden words and mischaracterizations of Afghan and Pakistani men.

The casual insertion of disparaging and condemnatory phrases, such as “…the local Taliban commander continues to flog her without mercy…”, “brutal subjugation of poor, uneducated women…”, and “The savage misogyny and feudal fury of the Swat Valley…”, paints a picture of a place where men are evil and women are victims. (emphasis mine) Instead of placing the blame on local manifestations of patriarchy, he hurls blame at local Taliban, not minding that his condemnation falls like misguided bombs on innocent men who have nothing to do with the Taliban or the public whipping in Pakistan.

Even without actually using the words “brutal” or “savage,” Hoagland successfully uses language to construct Afghan and Pakistani Muslim men as both: “The recent U.S. strategic review, … depict[s] the struggle in the desolate Afghanistan-Pakistan frontier as being rooted in fierce nationalism, the region’s ancient warrior culture, the failures of nation-building and the rebirth of jihadist terrorism.” Ancient warrior culture, huh? If that doesn’t convince you that these brown guys are also the bad guys, then what of “the desire of Pakistani and Afghan men to be left in peace to deal with their womenfolk as they see fit.”? Or “The savage misogyny and feudal fury of the Swat Valley are alien to modern, urban Turkey…” ?

There’s an interesting angle. The idea that Turkey is the “good” Muslim country, and Afghanistan and Pakistan are the “bad” ones is also racialized and Islamophobic. All three countries are predominately Muslim, but because of Turkey’s political/ideological identification with the white, non-Muslim West (particularly Europe), Turkey is the “tolerant, sophisticated” country, despite the fact that Turkey has just as many failings in women’s and human rights as Afghanistan and Pakistan do, both in its history and the present day.

Hoagland also drags out that old gem about Islam being incompatible with modernity: “All religions are absorbing the shocks of globalization. But none has felt more besieged than Islam as the flow of people, goods and instant communications across borders perturb or limit its deep reach into gender relations and family structures.” This paints Islam and Muslims as if they “can’t handle” modernization, and are thus not modern. Not to mention the myopic view that misses examples of religious extremism and gender backlashes from other faiths that have also grown with the rise of globalization.

The article is simply more of the same martial voices trying to camouflage themselves as “protectors of brown women from brown men” under the guise of politics. Hoagland’s judgmental phrases that cast Afghanistan, Pakistan, and everyone within their borders as innately and decidedly good-or-evil is not journalism, and it’s astonishing to see someone who has written about the region and its politics for so long know so little.

(Photo Credit: Xabier Mikel Laburu)

Stop Judging Me

by Guest Writer Ahmad Yousaf, originally published on his blog, i-Slam

In the Name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful

I was driving in my car listening to AM radio and for some God-forsaken reason, I tuned in to Mark Levin (a man who makes Rush Limbaugh sound intelligent and reasonable). My blood boiled as he repeatedly used words like ‘Islamic terrorists, Islamic, hate-mongerers, Islamofascists, ect.’

After slamming my fist into the steering wheel, imagining the Nissan sign in the middle was Levin’s face, I saw that I was low on gas so I pulled in to an Exxon. While my gas was being pumped, my frustrations about judgemental and ignorant human beings seemed to actually get worse. I decided that the best way to cool off was to eat something (explains a lot about my recent weight gain). I stepped in to the little gas station ‘mini-mart’ with my face red with anger and my stomach ready for retribution. I picked up a bag of Doritos and a bottle of Gatorade, went up to the register and handed the lady behind the register my credit card. The following poem ensued.  Keep an open mind while you read it and please comment and tell me what you think.

STOP JUDGING ME!!!

It was late, and her register was the only one open.
She was about 50 years old, caucasian and looked tired

She gave me a familiar cold stare that I had gotten used to
since the word Muslim became synonymous with the word terrorist.

I tried to look at myself through her eyes
See myself for what she sees me as, lies
Or at least ignorance, but contentment in ignorant bliss
Has the truth conveniently missed
It has the innocent painted
The purity of simple souls tainted
With blood soaked beards and masked executioners,
Having the masses seeing me as Osama incarnate, straight from the sands
Guilty by religious association, they have caught me with red hands
As if I personally tore down the towers brick by brick
That I made them sick with anthrax tricks
That on September 12th I had a smile on my face
Like I didn’t wish I could go back to the history books and hit backspace
As if I am building the dirty bomb they dream about in their nightmares
That I sting the eyes of mourning moms and churn out their widowed tears
As if I am the Wal-Mart of sorrows
The one stop shop crusher of happiness and snatcher of tomorrows
Like I mass produce grief and woe
And I sliced the throat of lady liberty and let her blood flow
And she thinks this of me before shes sees anything except my name
And before I can apologize for something I never did I am tagged with blame
So from her, I get a funny look, a rolling of the eyes
A smirk of disbelief or a suspicion ridden sigh
Relegating me to someone who belongs in Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo
No longer worthy of the right of opportunity, a chance to show
Who I really am… to explain with which eyes I see
Instead she keeps a watchful eye on me
As if I am going to jump over the counter and steal her liberty
But what she doesn’t realize is that she has already given up the freedom to think
And I watch as, in her false sense of patriotism, she sinks
When I reach out to help her, she flinches as if I am a murderous crook
And in reflex I say, 
“Lady, its been eight years, pick up a freakin book,
I am not a terrorist; Islam is not evil as they say
I do not drink the blood of children,
and hide from the sunlight during the day
I am just like you, just another human being
And it kills me to know that when you look at me all you are seeing
Is another sociopathic mass killer or another Saddam!”
She put up her hand,
Her face became red but her demeanor remained calm
‘I am sorry, I didn’t mean to look at you strangely or make you feel this way
And I know that many do judge you unfairly in the world we live in today
But I– I am just a single mother of one
And you look so much… well, the truth is you remind me of’
And now her tears began to run…
‘and I really miss him so much, but you look just– like my son………’

Her son had passed away at a young age and that ‘cold’ stare she gave me wasn’t cold at all. It was just one of sadness because I reminded her of someone she loved.  I hope the title ‘Stop Judging Me’ meant something different when you started the poem and when you ended it.

(Photo Credit: Pascal Deloche/Godong/Corbis)

Searching for My Pakistani Identity

By Jehanzeb Dar

It started off funny. I was at the mall buying a birthday gift for a friend of mine and, as usual, the store manager was friendly and conversational. After she took a good look at my gift, the following conversation took place:

MANAGER: Aww, is this for your girlfriend?

ME: She’s not my girlfriend.

MANAGER: That’s an awful lot of money for just a friend.

ME: (smiles) Well, maybe you can lower the price for me.

She laughed as she scanned the item through. Another customer approached the counter and waited patiently. She decided to chime in:

CUSTOMER: Ooh, you’re buying gifts!

ME: (smiles) Yeah, it’s for my friend’s birthday.

CUSTOMER: Aww, that’s so romantic, your girlfriend is going to Love it.

ME: She’s not my girlfriend.

CUSTOMER: Hmm, maybe she’s a special friend!

I laughed at how both of them were teasing me while I waited for the manager to package the gift. The manager was really helpful that day, so I asked her if there was a number I could call to give her an “outstanding” customer service rating. She showed me the number on the receipt and thanked me for asking. As the manager wrote her name on the receipt, the customer waiting in line caught me off guard with an unexpected question:

“What country are you from?”

For some reason, the question struck me in an odd way, as if it triggered an alarm in my head and sprung forth countless things I’ve been ruminating about over the past few weeks. It wasn’t a new question at all. I have brown skin; it’s easy to notice, so I understood. People ask me where I’m from all the time, but it was different now. Almost immediately, I thought about the current crisis in Pakistan, I thought about the corrupt Pakistani president Asif Zardari, I thought about the Taliban taking control of Swat Valley – a beautiful place that I visited once – and I thought about the U.S. drone attacks in Pakistan and my sheer frustration with Obama’s foreign policy. Even though it only took me about two seconds to respond, I still had more thoughts and feelings swell inside me. I feared that disclosing my nationality would disrupt the friendly interaction I had with the manager and customer. I worried that their response would be offensive or ignorant and that I would go home feeling like an “outsider.” It was too late for that. And it wasn’t their fault.

“Pakistan,” I said slowly with an unfamiliar discomfort in my voice.

I was shocked at the way I responded, it sounded like I was ashamed of it. I noticed the shift in her body language when she replied with a simple, “Oh.” It was the typical response I usually get after I tell people I’m Muslim. An awkward silence followed before she politely said, “cool.” Again, it was nothing new to me, but when I nodded and forced a weak smile, I suddenly felt the urge to leave. I left quickly after the manager handed me the gift. “It’s ok” I told myself as I heard the fast paced rhythm of my shoes walking on the marble floor, “they didn’t say anything wrong.” I thought about the possible conversation that took place behind me. Maybe they said something ignorant. Maybe they didn’t say anything at all. Maybe they had negative thoughts about Pakistan, maybe they didn’t. Maybe they wondered where it was on the map. Whatever they said or thought didn’t matter. What mattered were the countless thoughts that surfaced in my mind.

As I walked to the other side of the mall, my memory traveled back to January of 2008. Former Pakistani Prime Minister, Benazir Bhutto, had been killed in late December and it was the hot topic for a while in the mainstream media. I was on my way out of a post office one afternoon, minding my own business, when an older man smiled at me and placed a hand on my shoulder. “Are you Indian or Paki?” Caught off guard by the random question and his use of the word “Paki,” I smiled at the silliness of the question. “Umm, I’m Pakistani…” I said. The man’s face turned grim. “Shame on you!” he growled. Since there were so many things I was going through at the time, my grief reached a point where I couldn’t even get angry anymore. I laughed instead. “Excuse me?” I asked. He threw his hands in the air, “Your country is a mess! You guys are killing your leaders and your women!” You can’t be serious, I thought to myself. I couldn’t believe I was standing in a post office and listening to a man flipping out on me just because I’m from a certain part of the world.

I stood my ground and called him out on his ignorance. I told him he was generalizing about me, as well as the people of Pakistan. I also told him that it wasn’t fair for him to treat me as if I had control over what country I’m from. He apologized, “I’m sorry, you’re right. See, you’re good because you’re here. You’re good because you’re an American.” Right. Typical “melting-pot” remark. Let’s mix everyone together, cut them off from their culture and heritage, and give them one identity: American. “So what about my family members who live in Pakistan?” I asked him. “Are they ‘bad’ since they’re not American?” He replied, “Well they should come over here.” Yeah, like that’s a piece of cake. And besides, what’s up with the assumption that people living in the Muslim world want to come to the United States (or any Western country)? He apologized again and then asked, “Are you Muslim?” Oh boy. “Yeah,” I said. Before I know it, he was going on about Christianity and how democratic values are also Christian values, so Muslims could benefit a lot from Christians. I tried to enlighten him about Islam, coexistence, and how we’re all created by God, but it didn’t seem like he was receptive to what I was saying. He ended up making an insensitive remark about Muslims standing at the end of the line in the afterlife. He was trying to be funny. I couldn’t stay there. I shook my head, “whatever.” As I walked out the door, I heard him say “Ah, I’m just kidding!”

I had to disengage from the conversation because it brought back memories of something that happened to me in the summer of 2007. I was working a part-time job in the photo lab at CVS Pharmacy. I Loved my job, which is why the managers always called me first whenever they needed help. It was a really happy time in my life, I had friendly relations with my co-workers, and I was really good with customers. We were incredibly low on help that day though and at one point, I was the only person on register. The line only got longer and longer, and eventually, a cranky customer started swearing at me for moving too slow for her. I ignored it at first, but then she cursed at me again and told me that I “shouldn’t work here.” I explained that we were short on help and I politely asked her to stop cursing at me. It only made things worse. “Who the f*** are you to tell me to stop talking?!” she shouted.

Finally, my manager rushed back to the front of the store. He couldn’t help but notice the angry customer and her friend. “What’s the problem here?” he asked. Before I could answer, the customer pointed at me and said, “You better watch out for this kid otherwise he’s going to blow up the store.” I froze in utter disbelief. I felt the anger rushing through my blood and then I broke out, “What did you say?! Are you judging me by the color of my skin?! Why did you say something like that?!” She shouted back, “man, just do your f***ing job!” My manager intervened and told me to take a break. I listened and began to the break room, but I heard the customers talking behind me, “if he’s going to wait for us in the parking lot, we can take him! There’s two of us.” I was so outraged and furious. I turned around and said, “Who’s talking about violence here?” She said I threatened her first because I told her to “stop talking.” I shook my head, “No, I told you to stop cursing.” My manager stepped in between me and the customers. He pushed me back, as if I was going to hit the customers or something. “Just stop,” he said to me, “Just ignore them.” The customer’s friend stepped forward and said, “F*** you, terrorist!” I was so angry that I just stormed out of the building and drove home. I was notified a week later that I was terminated because the incident “created a problem” for the store and I was supposed to “bite my tongue” just like the “company policy” expected all employees to (how I handled the case, with the help of CAIR, is another discussion!).

I reflected on these two experiences as I walked out of the mall with my friend’s birthday gift. When I started my car, I sat and spaced out for a while. I thought about how my past experiences sometimes make me so tense and uneasy whenever non-Muslims ask about religious and/or ethnic background. With the current crisis in Pakistan, I worry that the ignorant and offensive remarks will only get worse, but amidst all the politics and personal fears, I am also bothered immensely by how distant I am from my ethnic background.

The next morning, I stood in front of the mirror and felt so unusually distraught. I stared at my brown skin, my black hair, my half-Kashmiri and half-Punjabi nose; I thought about my suburban-American accent and my inability to speak Urdu and Punjabi fluently. I felt a mismatch, like I was some kind of cheap import. I felt fake and counterfeit. I thought about all the times I see older South Asians working at local stores and feeling terrible for speaking to them in English when I could be speaking in Urdu or Hindi. When I walk away, I always wonder if they’re thinking, “oh the kids in this country forget their culture and their language, it’s such a shame.” In South Asian culture, we always refer to elders as “Auntie” and “Uncle,” so whenever I see elderly South Asians, I want them to know that they are “Auntie” and “Uncle” to me. Sometimes, it feels like my skin color and name are the only Pakistani things about me. What does it mean to be Pakistani? I can put on my shalwar kameez (traditional South Asian dress) and attend a South Asian event on campus, enjoy the music, dances, and food, but does that make me Pakistani? What do I know about Pakistan – the history, the culture, the people, the great mystics, thinkers, and leaders of the past, or even the politics? Although I’ve made attempts to re-connect with my Pakistani identity in recent years, I feel that current events (as well as things I’ve observed in other Pakistani-Americans) have caused me to turn inward again in efforts to attain a richer understanding of what my ethnic identity really means to me.

I was born in Lahore, Pakistan. My father’s family descends from Kashmiris who migrated to Lahore, and my mother’s family is Punjabi. Although I’ve never experienced what it’s like to live in Pakistan (since my family moved to the United States shortly after I was born), I’ve stayed there on long visits. The first time I visited Pakistan was in 1999 and I remember hating it. The bumpy roads, the crowded traffic, the poverty, the pollution, the electric cutting out randomly – it all made me miss the United States. At the time, as a 15 year-old, I admit that I felt better than everyone else because I was an American citizen. When I returned to the U.S., I would tell my White non-Muslim friends how proud and grateful we should be to live in America. Like many other Pakistani-Americans that I knew at the time, I made fun of Pakistani/Indian music, culture, language, accents, and dress. I associated all of those things with my parents; it had nothing to do with me. I was American.

I went to Pakistan again in 2000 for my Uncle’s wedding and my opinion of the country didn’t change much. I still thought it was backwards and uncivilized, although I remember seeing something that struck me as oddly positive. On our way to the wedding, a truck accidentally hit one of our party’s cars. The respective drivers – complete strangers – got out and shook hands! Then, we invited the truck driver to the wedding! That was something I don’t ever recall seeing in the United States. Still, I longed to leave Pakistan, so much so that I couldn’t even appreciate the fact that my Uncle’s wedding lasted for three days (as opposed to the typical single-day weddings I would see in Hollywood films). I couldn’t appreciate the decorations, the dancing, the beautiful South Asian dresses, or the immense amount of preparation that went into it all. I regret that now.

It wasn’t until I visited Pakistan in early 2002 when I really learned to appreciate it. As many of my friends know, 2002 was a special year for me. It was the year I discovered my inner voice. I remember sitting in the car while the driver navigated us through the busy traffic of Lahore and without warning, a question struck me in such a profound way. The question didn’t come from someone, it came from within: I asked myself, “Why do you hate this place so much?” I stared out the window and saw people walking with their spouses, children, and friends. They were going somewhere. To school, to work, to buy something, to have fun with their friends – every day activities that my friends and I would do except in a different part of the world. This place was home to them. “This is where you were born,” I said in my thoughts, “This place is in your blood.” It helped that I had a great time with my family that year too, but I also believe that these questions didn’t come to me randomly or without meaning. For the first time, when I left Pakistan, I was sad. Sure, I was happy about going home and seeing my friends again, but I also felt like I didn’t get enough of a chance to explore more, i.e. explore more about myself.

Since it was post September 11th, I was already experiencing a lot of hostility and prejudice in my predominately White non-Muslim high school because of my religious background. When I returned from Pakistan, classmates and teachers asked a lot of ignorant questions. Questions like: “Why do they have weird names?” or “Are they Taliban?” or “Don’t they hate America?” The most insulting one probably came from my friend’s mom, “Are they very pro-bin Laden over there?” I told her that Osama bin Laden was the last thing on my mind when I was there and I also added that she should visit Pakistan some time since it’s a beautiful place. As a result of my new appreciation for Pakistan, I started to become more religious and spiritual. It was the first time in my life when I read the Qur’an on my own free will and it was the first time I prayed without anyone instructing me to do so. It was a very special turning point in my life since I began to contemplate religion and spirituality in ways that I never did before, but what I didn’t realize was that my attempts to become a better Muslim actually distanced me from my ethnic identity rather than compliment it. In actuality I was doing something that many young Pakistani Muslims do these days: I was trying to be Arab.

Over the years, I’ve found that discussing Pakistani identity is quite problematic and controversial at times because it’s often perceived as “religion versus culture.” Generally speaking, we Pakistanis try to distance ourselves from India as far as possible because we think India is synonymous with Hinduism, therefore “kuffar” (nonbelievers/infidels). It’s silly actually considering that (1) India has the third-largest Muslim population in the world and (2) prior to the partition in 1947, Pakistan was part of India; therefore the similarities in culture, dress, food, and language are inescapable. In any case, many Pakistani Muslims in America cut themselves off from India and Indian culture in pursuit of an “authentic Muslim” identity, which happens to point to the Middle-East. In other words, we take on a pseudo-Arab identity.

So many times, I’ve heard fellow Pakistani Muslims saying that we should abolish culture completely because there is no culture in Islam. We’re Muslim and that’s it. I bought into that for a while. “Yeah, we Pakistanis watch too many Bollywood movies,” I would say, “We have girls dancing at our weddings, that’s not Islamic!” As I condemned Pakistani culture, I didn’t realize that I was adopting another culture: Arab culture, or at least what I perceived to be “Arab culture” (saying “Arab culture” is inaccurate since the Arab world is filled with diverse cultures, religions, and dialects, it can’t be narrowed down into “one culture”). In my freshmen year of college, I would wear my keffiyeh (traditional Arab scarf), drive around blasting Arabic music, and making enormous efforts to learn Arabic. To give you an idea of how much I studied Arabic, I can put it like this: my Arabic pronunciation is much better than my Urdu and Punjabi pronunciation. I don’t regret learning the amount of Arabic I know now; I admit that it helps understanding your prayers a lot better, but I feel a tremendous amount of shame when I make pathetic attempts to speak Urdu. When I throw in some Arabic phrases when I meet Arab-speaking people, they smile and tell me how good my accent is. When I try to speak Urdu with South Asian friends and family, they laugh because they can hear it mixed with my American accent.

I became discouraged when I saw the same Pakistani Muslims who despised culture taking dabkeh lessons (folk dance of Lebanon, Palestine, Syria, Jordan, and Iraq), smoking hookah, or wearing thobs (traditional Arab dress for men), as if there wasn’t anything cultural about those things. They would also rebel against the South Asian pronunciation of their names and pronounce them the “correct Arabic” way. It dawned on me that we weren’t getting rid of culture; we merely getting rid of South Asian culture – our culture. As Fatemeh Fakhraie writes in her brilliant article, “The Arabization of Islam:”

What is troublesome about all this is that most Muslims who are non-Arabs complain that they’re not seen as Muslims because they’re not Arab (or ethnically Middle Eastern, in some cases). But when non-Arab Muslims take Arab names or wear Arab clothes under the guise of “Islamic authenticity,” we’re all reinforcing the idea that we’re not really Muslims unless we have some link to Arab culture.

I have seen many Pakistanis Muslims using Arabic words like “akhi” (brother), “ukhti” (sister), “wallahi” (I swear to God), and even non-religious words like “yanni” in their conversations. There’s nothing wrong with this, but if they inserted Urdu words instead of Arabic words, they wouldn’t be taken seriously. Why? Because we don’t take Urdu seriously. The only time we’ll use Urdu is to be funny. It’s like, “haha, you sound like a FOB!” The only time we’ll use Urdu in a serious manner is when we’re speaking to elders (because it’s an “older people” thing, right?). Speaking Arabic, on the other hand, is taken seriously and even makes you look like a better Muslim. We attribute more religiosity to Muslims who can give khutbahs or speeches with “proper Arabic pronunciation.” Even at the recent CAIR event I attended, one of the guest speakers was a South Asian Muslim woman who made sure she pronounced every Arabic word and Muslim name “correctly,” as if not doing so would lower her credibility. It was interesting because I didn’t hear any of the Arab speakers pronounce Pakistan correctly (they said “Pack-istan” rather than “Paak-istaan”), and yet you see young South Asian Muslims striving to pronounce Arabic correctly.

But it’s not just pronunciation that’s changing. Words are changing and being replaced too. The best example is how the Urdu phrase, “Khuda hafez” (God be with you), has been replaced with “Allah hafez.” They both mean the same thing, but thanks to the growing influence of Salafi movements among Sunni Muslims in Pakistan, the use of “Khuda hafez” became gunah (sinful). “Khuda” comes from the Persian word for God (pronounced “Khoda” in Farsi), but since Arabic is taught to be the “Muslim language,” it has been replaced with “Allah hafez.” I remember, on one of my trips to Pakistan, I heard some of my relatives say, “don’t say ‘Khuda hafez,’ it’s gunah! Say ‘Allah hafez.’” As Pervez Amirali Hoodbhoy elaborates:

Persian, the language of Mughal India, had once been taught as a second or third language in many Pakistani schools. But, because of its association with Shiite Iran, it too was dropped and replaced with Arabic. The morphing of the traditional “Khuda hafiz” (Persian for “God be with you”) into “Allah hafiz” (Arabic for “God be with you”) took two decades to complete. The Arab import sounded odd and contrived, but ultimately the Arabic God won and the Persian God lost.

And of course, there’s nothing wrong with saying “Allah hafez.” I say it now and then, but why are we labeling “Khuda hafez” sinful? Is one “more Islamic” than the other? Have Muslims forgotten that God teaches logic and reason? Does it make any sense that God can only understand Arabic? The same kind of propaganda was used against those who followed Jesus, peace be upon him, when they were told that Angels could only speak Hebrew and not Aramaic. Consider this Qur’anic verse:

“Call upon God, or call upon the Merciful; by whatever name you call upon Him (it is the same), to Him belong the most Beautiful names.” (17:110)

Avoiding the use of “Khuda hafez” is also an example of how Salafi Muslims strive to abstain from biddah, or innovation, which in turn explains their strong opposition towards culture. Subsequently, we see Salafi Muslims seeking to purge Sufism (Islamic mysticism) out of Pakistan. The Sufis are Islamic mystics, who do not see Sufism as a separate sect of Islam, but rather an inclusive and necessary mystical dimension of Islam that explores one’s inward journey for God, self, and Divine Love. The Sufis often express their Love for God and the Prophets through music, dancing (notably whirling meditation), and Divinely-inspired poetry. Conservative Muslims perceive this as “Indian Islam” and accuse the Sufis of committing biddah and even shirk (associating partners with God), even though the Sufis, like all Muslims, don’t worship anyone else besides God. Qawwali music, for example, is a Sufi musical style of South Asia, but since Salafi Muslims condemn music, many Pakistani Muslims don’t learn to appreciate Qawwali for what it is. I remember one of my dad’s Pakistani co-workers was sitting in my car and he heard me listening to Qawwali music. He said to me, “man, why are you listening to this? You’re not supposed to sing about Allah in songs, that’s a sin.” I couldn’t help but think about the times I sat in his car and heard him listening to hip-hop music with excessive profanity and pornographic lyrics – he’s telling me that listening to Qawwali is sinful? This is just an example of how deep the conservative Salafi brainwashing is on Pakistanis. As is evident from my father’s friend, the conservative teachings even affect those who aren’t as vocal about their Muslim identity. As Sufi Muslims teach to be accepting of others, I’ve often found that conservative Muslims tend to be more about conformity, and this is a huge problem because it’s not only an attempt to pull us away from ethnic identity, but it’s also a way of “infidelizing” Sufi Muslims or anyone else who doesn’t agree with Salafi interpretations of Islam.

Recently, I gave a Pakistani cricket jersey to a friend of mine who became Muslim earlier this year and a couple of Pakistani Muslims in their mid-twenties made silly remarks about the jersey. They said, “We should get him a shirt that says ‘Islam.’” I felt like responding, “If he wore a shirt that said ‘Free Palestine,’ you wouldn’t say anything, right?” And it’s true, we see Muslims – both Arab and non-Arab – wearing Palestinian keffiyehs or “Free Palestine” shirts in the Mosque and no one makes an issue about it. No one accuses them of being more cultural than religious.

The little secret about us Pakistani Muslims is that we like when people mistaken us for Middle-Eastern. We get all flattered. Really? You thought I was Arab? Wow, thanks! But when people ask if we’re Indian, we respond in disgust. The first time I noticed this difference was in college when my professor felt like bashing on Muslims one day (she was one of the most Islamophobic teachers I’ve ever had). She asked, “Where are all my students from the Middle-East?” She immediately looked at me because she knew I was Muslim. “I’m actually from South Asia,” I said, “but thanks for the compliment.” Smile. I said that in defense of Middle-Easterners since there’s such a negative perception of them in the media (and also because Middle-Easterners get lumped together with Muslims). About a week later, I remember asking a non-Pakistani girl if she was Pakistani, and she responded with disgust, “No! I’m not! Why does everyone always think I’m Paki?!” Well, excuse me, I didn’t mean to offend you. I mean, ew, Pakistani? Who wants to be Pakistani? Ask us if we’re Palestinian, Lebanese, Egyptian, or even Iranian, and we’ll totally be cool with that. Why? Because we don’t want to look like Pakistanis. We don’t want to look like what we are.

The “Arabization” of Islam has gotten to the point where religious scholars from immensely popular Islamic websites like SunniPath.com teach that Arab Muslims are superior to non-Arab Muslims and that praying behind Shia Muslims will invalidate your prayer! If Malcolm X was Pakistani, he’d have a lot to rip into us about. On one hand, we have Pakistanis completely emulating the images and behavior they see in Western pop culture and on the other, we see Pakistani Muslims trying to behave Arab in order to “authenticate” their Muslim identity. Either way, we’re distancing ourselves from our Pakistani and/or South Asian roots. Where did all of this internalized racism and self-hatred come from? Malcolm X was Muslim, but he also taught African-Americans to be proud of their roots and heritage. Why can’t Pakistani Muslims do the same? When bombs fall on Gaza, Pakistani Muslims throw on their keffiyehs, pump their fists in the air, and chant “free Palestine,” but where are they for Pakistan? Now, our country is in trouble. There are U.S. drone attacks killing innocent Pakistani civilians in tribal areas. The Taliban have taken control of Swat Valley, imposed their oppressive Taliban law, and destroyed over 200 schools, mostly girls’ schools. Did you read that? Good. Read it again. According to Tariq Ali, Pakistani author of “The Duel: Pakistan on the Flight Path of American Power,” the majority of Pakistanis are not only anti-Taliban and anti-extremism, but 70% of them perceive the U.S. as the greatest threat to peace in Pakistan. Will we Pakistani Muslims in America start educating ourselves about Pakistan or will we do what most of the Pakistanis at my Mosque do when I tell them the latest news from Pakistan: shrug their shoulders, shake their heads, and simply say “yeah it’s crazy”?

I have always told people (and myself) that I am Muslim first. I still say this, but it doesn’t mean that I can’t be appreciative or proud about being Pakistani. I am not encouraging fellow Pakistanis to support the Pakistani government – that’s not what I’m suggesting at all since the government is absolutely corrupt. What I am encouraging is that we care about the country we come from as much as we care for the country we live in. As Tariq Ali writes, the people of Pakistan cannot be blamed for the failure of their politicians or the recent violence that is unfolding. I am not saying we shouldn’t learn Arabic either. I still want to learn Arabic, I still wear my keffiyeh to represent the Palestinian people, and I still listen to Arabic music, but not at the expense of forgetting my South Asian heritage.

I try to make as many efforts as I can to brush up on my Urdu and Punjabi, and I also read about the history of Pakistan and India. I know all humanity descends from Adam and Eve (peace be upon them both), but why do I have to ignore the people in between? I am not ashamed of my Buddhist, Hindu, or possible Jewish (many Kashmiris claim to be one of the ten lost tribes of Israel) ancestry. I embrace that. Why should we ignore the great mystical poetry of Amir Khosrow, Mirza Ghalib, Bulleh Shah, and Allama Muhammad Iqbal? Why should we ignore the beautiful architecture of Shah Jahan (he built the Taj Mahal)? I remember when I was listening to a Qawwali song by the legendary Pakistani singer, Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan, I felt like I was reconnecting with a missing part of me. I would constantly listen to his beautiful wailing and hear so many emotions being expressed: Love, yearning, pain, sorrow, grief, joy, and happiness. “This is the voice of my soul,” I would think to myself, “this is that other side of me that I have forgotten.”

The last time I went to Pakistan was in 2004 and it was the first time I visited the country with respect and appreciation. I hope to visit again someday. I often wonder if the country will recognize me as the child of its land or as some tourist just passing on by. I know I stand out when I go to Pakistan. It’s in my body language, the way I walk, the way I speak, but all that doesn’t matter to me because I know that I am striving to re-connect. I know I am making an effort. I would like to revisit the Tomb of Jahangir in Lahore to reflect on the timeless history. I want to see the city of Muree again and enjoy the beautiful mountains. I want to visit the Sindh and let my heart mourn with the tragic Love story of Sohni and Mahiwal (depicted left). I would like to visit Mohenjo-daro, one of the largest cities of the ancient Indus Valley Civilization. I would like to trace my ancestry, visit Kashmir and then India.

I am a Pakistani who has grown up in the West and I know that my experiences may be completely different from what people in Pakistan experience, but it still hurts me to see what is happening in Pakistan today. I still care. It hurts even more when I see such a strong anti-Pakistani sentiment in the United States. Discussing Pakistani politics is another blog post, but I would like others to know that Pakistan is a beautiful place filled with a rich culture that is struggling to survive amidst Westernization and heavy Salafi influences. I find hope in the fact that the majority of Pakistanis are strongly against the Taliban and the corrupt politicians governing them.

Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, said in his last sermon: “All humankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over a black, nor a black has any superiority over a white- except by piety and good action.” The Prophet would not have addressed this issue if there weren’t noticeable differences among human beings. As the Qur’an says: “Another of His signs is the creation of the heavens and earth, and the diversity of your languages and color. There truly are signs in this for those who know” (30:22). There is also this famous verse: “O people, we created you from the same male and female, and rendered you distinct peoples and tribes, so that you may know one another.” (49:13)

In closing, I would like to share that as I wrote this reflection on Pakistani identity, I found myself asking, “Why is Pakistan so important to me?” I responded simply: I was born there. Many of family members are there. My ancestry is there.

Those answers suffice for me.

Khuda hafez

Visit “Muslim Lookout”

“Muslim Lookout” is a new blog that “analyzes and critiques representations of Muslims in mainstream Canadian media and pop culture.”  Please visit the site and show your support by spreading the word, sharing the links, and leaving comments!

More about the blog:

Muslim Lookout defines Canadian media and pop culture as the mainstream media and pop culture to which Canadians are exposed, which often includes media and pop culture that come from the United States and other countries. All of this will form part of the analysis and critique on this blog.

ML is meant to be an inclusive and safe space for all Muslims, as well as sympathetic non-Muslims. We aim to maintain a safe and respectful space for our contributors and commentors. To help us maintain this safe environment we ask that you be considerate of all others in this space. One of the tools for real progress is open and respectful dialogue. Please help us achieve this. We believe we cannot learn from each other unless we respect each other.

In our effort to serve our readers to the best of our abilities, we suggest that if you see something in the media that you feel needs analysis, or would be of interest to us, please do let us know. Or better yet, if you would like to contribute, as we are limited in number ourselves, drop us an email. We cannot guarantee that we will publish your piece, but if it matches with our worldview and perspective, and is in line with our purpose, then we welcome guest contributors.

Our worldview:

We recognize the role that colonization has played in shaping societies, including ones from which many Muslims hail, all around the world.

Our analyses are presented from a perspective that recognizes privileges in society whether it be race, ethnicity, religion, class, sexual orientation, etc.

“Muslim Lookout” is currently looking for Muslim writers, so if you would like to contribute, please visit the site and contact them for more info!  You can also find my critique on Frank Miller’s “300″ published on the site, as well as my piece on “Yes Man.”

Late Comment on Hijaab

I just came back from a community cinema event in Philadelphia for an independent film called “Arusi Persian Wedding” directed by Marjan Tehrani. It’s a really beautiful film that follows an Iranian-American and his American wife who travel to Iran and have a traditional Persian wedding. I was not only in awe of how incredibly beautiful Iran is, but also at how I found myself relating to it. The Iranian-American expresses his pride for his Iranian roots, but also feels a distance because of his inability to fully understand the culture and language. It reminded me about how I sometimes struggle with finding my ethnic identity, no matter how much I’m proud of it.

After the screening, there was a guest panel that led an interesting discussion about the film and then took questions from the audience. My friend got a chance to chime in with a great question, while I decided to sit back and listen. I didn’t feel like I had much to contribute to the conversation since the event seemed to aim at breaking stereotypes about Iran, its people, and its culture. Although one of the panelists spoke very highly of her experience as a White woman in Iran, she admitted that “initially, I was frightened, as a feminist, when I learned I had to wear the veil…”

When I got home tonight, her words replayed in my mind over and over again. I really should have gotten up and said something, even though I just wanted to make a small comment. I think I’ll e-mail her after I write this, but what I wanted to point out is that it’s very important for us to not make an association between oppression and the hijaab, or veil. Her comment seemed to implicate that someone who wears the hijaab could not also be a feminist (I would have asked her to correct me if I was wrong). I’m sure this is not what she meant, but I believe it would have been important for one of the panelists to mention that forcing someone to dress a certain way is very different from someone choosing to dress a certain way. There are plenty of Muslim women in other parts of the world, especially in the West, who wear hijaab by choice; therefore it would be very inaccurate to say that Muslim women who wear hijaab cannot be feminists. I’m glad one of the Iranian panelists said that Iranian women still drive, work, and go to school, contrary to the stereotypes and misconceptions that they’re “so oppressed.”

The other thing I should have commented on was on their usage of the word “Islam” whenever discussing the “Islamic Revolution” in 1979 and the current “Islamic Laws.” The Qur’an clearly states that religion cannot be imposed on people. Doesn’t Allah teach us to use our logic and reasoning? What is so logical about forcing someone to believe a certain way? The true spiritual essence and beauty gets lost when someone is being forced to practice a religion. Spirituality and Faith is personal; it must be felt within. Reciting the Shahada (Islamic declaration of Faith) is simple, while believing in it is something deeper and entirely different altogether.

Later, someone asked a question about whether or not these were the dress codes for Muslim women in all Islamic countries, and one of two Iranian panelists said, “I’m not sure, but I would say ‘yes,’ they are universal.” A friend and I spoke about this later after the discussion and both agreed that we felt a strong anti-Islam vibe from her. I was glad that the other Iranian panelist jumped in and explained that these are not universal dress codes in Islamic countries since most Muslim countries don’t force women to wear hijaab or the burqah.

Anyway, my main point is that the hijaab should not be associated with oppression, and Muslim women who wear it shouldn’t be so quickly judged. Just because some feminists are not familiar with certain manners of dress doesn’t mean that it’s not compatible with feminism. I think it’s important for feminists to understand that feminist thought is very diverse rather than being limited to one group of people, one culture, and one skin color.

“War on Terror” Ends Reign As War on Words

As I was scrolling through Yahoo news stories, I was happy to find this little gem which discusses changes Obama’s administration has been putting into effect since his campaign.

During the past seven years, the “War Against Terror” or “War on Terror” came to represent everything the U.S. military was doing in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the broader effort against extremists elsewhere or those seen as aiding militants aimed at destroying the West.

Ultimately and perhaps inadvertently, however, the phrase “became associated in the minds of many people outside the Unites States and particularly in places where the countries are largely Islamic and Arab, as being anti-Islam and anti-Arab,” said Anthony Cordesman, a national security analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank.

We come to understanding through communication. This means that language in its many forms holds the key to understanding and whether it is fueled by tolerance or intolerance. I hope President Obama continues to lead by example using language that keeps problem-solving in mind as opposed to the last few years of a linguistic reign of fear.

A Muslim’s Memo to Obama: Words Cannot Camouflage Cluster Bombs

This post comes to IOMS from Junaid of Crossing the Crescent and is republished with the writer’s permission.

A fair number of liberals swooning over President Barack Obama’s recent speechmaking are also impressed by his rhetorical overtures to Arabs and Muslims, first articulated during his inaugural address and reiterated on a major Arabic-language news channel.

The sharp divergence in tone and tenor from Bush’s rhetoric is certainly welcome after eight years of hubris and arrogance.

Quoting from a New York Times article today:

In the interview, which was taped on Monday night and broadcast throughout the Muslim world on Tuesday, Mr. Obama said it was his job “to communicate to the Muslim world that the Americans are not your enemy.”

He added that “we sometimes make mistakes,” but said that America was not born as a colonial power and that he hoped for a restoration of “the same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago.”

But while the best orators can massage reality through rhetoric, rhetoric cannot reshape reality when there is a vast, yawning chasm between mellifluous words and murderous weapons.

Obama’s silence-and, ultimately, lame endorsement-of Israel’s murder of hundreds of civilians is an example of such a chasm. It is one that will not easily exit the collective memory of the Muslim world by dint of a few pretty pronouncements.

Was it a “mistake” to stand by Israel as it ruthlessly and deliberately destroyed and deracinated Palestinian neighborhoods in a ghastly display of cheerful brutality? Obama certainly didn’t think so, as he told State Department employees. He obligatorily invoked the usual AIPAC-induced buzzwords that exude a perverse “blame the victim” vibe, championing Israel’s “right to defend itself” as it left mountains of corpses in the wake of its massive attack of hospitals, depots, journalists, and human rights infrastructure. He even spared a moment to demand that Hamas recognize Israel’s legitimacy as it illegitimately rampaged through Gaza, and reminded us all of Israel’s right to exist.

But was Israel’s “right to exist” ever threatened by unguided rockets that failed to kill more than three or four civilians while Israel itself was swiftly slaughtering five or six hundred innocents? Should Obama have not rather concerned himself with the “right to exist” of a people–a stateless, homeless, blockaded, people–who were being flattened inside their refugee camps as he was lecturing?

Obama’s decision to emphasize the absurd instead of the obvious was very revealing. It was a message that Muslim life is expendable. It was a message that Muslims can be killed en masse. And it was a message the Muslim world heard loudly.

If one hundred Palestinian corpses are placed next to one Israeli corpse, the “new” White House informed Muslims through Obama’s messaging, its scales of sympathy will still not tip in their favor. Palestinians will be addressed tersely and only to demand that they recognize their oppressor’s right to exist.

This is akin to yelling into the ear of a rape victim during an assault that she must recognize the rights of her rapist. It is an insult with few parallels-but many echoes.

Can a relationship based on “respect and partnership” be established in this context? Obama silently acceded to-and then effectively endorsed-wanton violence in which more than half the victims were civilians, extended his sympathy first and foremost to the victimizers, and only secondarily, half-heartedly, grudgingly, to the victims.

Obama’s fundamental failure to confront Israel’s utter disregard for Muslim life is a red line that cannot be elided by fine speechmaking. Any “good faith” effort he attempts in the Islamic sphere will melt like hot wax under the burning impact of his failure to confront the Palestinian question honestly.

This was made painfully clear when Obama dispatched George Mitchell to the Middle East in the aftermath of the Gaza invasion to make some initial steps toward something resembling peace.

On its face, the move was reasonable: Mitchell is a serious and hardened diplomat. The only problem with this political maneuver is that Israel, euphoric from its latest round of killing, is about to empower hard-right politicians who view any peace process with hatred and contempt. Even though the war was launched by what passes for the “center-left” in Israel-Ehud Barak and Tzipi Livni-this sector will not be the main beneficiary of its own blood-soaked policies.

Instead, the fascist politician Avigdor Liberman, who pines for the ethnic cleansing of Israel’s Arabs, and the Likudnik Benjamin Netanyahu, who openly opposes any peace moves, are expected to reap the most fruit in the upcoming elections. The very idea that such men have the slightest interest in achieving peace is a pungent mixture of the perverse and the peculiar.

The ascendance of Israel’s right in a war launched by its left should serve as a cautionary reminder that, sometimes, an action can have unforeseen consequences. The same can be said of inaction: it cannot always be covered up in fine phrases or even in well-meaning actions that come too little, too late. Obama is going to have to do more than utter pretty words and dutifully dispatch diplomats after “allies” commit massacres if he genuinely expects the United States to achieve cordial relations with the world’s 1.5 billion Muslims.

It is a macabre fact that while Obama now speaks warm words about the prospects of future relations with Muslims, the Israelis viewed his very ascension as a perfect opportunity to go “berserk” (as the operation was approvingly described in Israel) against Muslims–with the implicit understanding that the madness will, of course, pause in time for the inaugural ceremony, and be followed by zero repercussions for the aggressors.

No “respect or partnership” with Muslims can be based upon this kind of grotesque, quasi-coordinated humiliation.

If Obama is at all serious about his overture, he will have to confront old shibboleths and entrenched interests-including the pro-Israeli lobby. Of course, that is no easy task, and it is tempting to ignore for two reasons.

First: no other vested interest surpasses in obscenity or audacity this largely unchallenged outfit. Its attempts to portray an occupying power as the victim of the very people it has occupied, dispossessed, and corralled into the world’s largest concentration camp is strange. That this reverse-reality trick is performed by invoking a persecution from another time and place is even stranger–a feat of emotional extortion without equal.

Indeed, as Israeli shells were splattering Palestinian skulls on the walls of destroyed homes, one indignant American Jewish writer opined in a British newspaper that the pressing problem of the hour was actually an upsurge of “the purest antisemitism since the Nazi era.” Pity that it was not the Palestinians experiencing this apparent upswing of Nazi-like vitriol: it would have spared them 95% of their casualties.

Second:, unlike Israel and its American lobbying arm, the Muslim world is weak. In fact, it is in shameful disarray. The collective failure of the Arabs and the Muslims to do more than posture, prattle, and piss in the wind during the demolition of Gaza will be recorded–and has already been recorded in the minds of many of its followers-as one of the lowest points in the 1,400-year history of Muslim civilization.

Nonetheless, there are sound geo-strategic reasons for America to make good with a quarter of humanity. If Obama is committed to achieving that end, he should know that Muslims, for all their current failings, are neither stupid nor naïve. Cooing while killing will work no better than the last eight years of cackling while killing.

If President Obama wishes to repair relations with the Muslim world and help isolate Islamic extremists, he is going to have to reign in anti-Muslim extremists who would already be isolated but for America’s enabling of them. Israel in “berserk” mode tops that list.