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)

Muslim-Americans Cautiously Optimistic about Obama

Yesterday morning, as I rushed to eat my breakfast and leave for class, my father tapped me on the shoulder and said, “Guess what?”  With little interest I asked “What?” and expected my dad to crack another joke about Obama converting to Islam, but instead he said, “On the first day, Obama suspended all the trials at Guantanamo Bay.  He’s shutting it down.”  I was pleasantly surprised.

As I drove to college, I felt a little more optimistic about Barack Husayn Obama’s Presidency.  “So far, so good,” I said to myself.  “Not bad, not bad.”  As I read the article myself, the skeptic in me surfaced again when I read Guantanamo Bay would be shut down within a year’s time.  In a facility where Muslim detainees, many of whom are suspected “terrorists” and Al-Qaida “links,” are victimized by brutal and unlawful methods of torture, such as being forced to eat pork, drink alcohol, and curse the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), am I the only one who thinks one year is too long?

The truth is I struggled, and continue to struggle, with my support for Obama.  During election time, I proudly supported him.  I put his lawn signs up and even convinced others to vote for him. Muslim-Americans, including friends of mine, campaigned for him and encouraged fellow Muslims to show their support.

As someone who has experienced Islamophobia first-hand, foreign policy and racial profiling were probably the most important issues to me in this election. Hate crimes and discriminatory acts towards Muslims increased on an annual basis, and I did not hear President Bush voice any concern about it. In addition to how the media kept vilifying Islam and isolating the Muslim voice, I felt like an outsider. But when I saw Obama run for president and talk about so many things, like engaging in diplomacy with Muslim countries, ending racial profiling, closing Guantanamo Bay, and even going as far to state that the U.S. is not just a Christian nation, but a Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, Atheist nation as well, I felt like the positive image of America could be restored again and that I wouldn’t just be viewed as an “immigrant-American” anymore.  For once, I felt like I could look at our flag and connect with it in a way that I never did before.  But those moments were very brief and they went away quickly.

During the presidential debates, he spoke with so much hostility towards Pakistan. He came off sounding very ignorant and misinformed about the situation. Then Gaza was a wake up call. With over 1,300 people dead, I can’t help but wonder why Obama would condemn the terrorist attacks in Mumbai, but not have the courage to condemn Israel’s terrorist attacks on Gaza.   During the crisis, I re-watched his speech at AIPAC several times and felt my hopes in him crumbling away.

After one of the Gaza rallies in Philadelphia, a friend of mine said, “everyone at that rally voted for Obama. Is he going to show us any appreciation in return?” I voted for Obama because I am sick of feeling like an outsider.  I voted for Obama because I’m sick of seeing only one side of the story, while Muslims are vilified in the mainstream media.  I voted for Obama because I don’t want my heart to feel any more pain whenever I’m praying for fellow human beings who are being killed overseas.

And then, just last night, things started to shift again for me.  After Isha prayer at my local Mosque, my fellow Muslim brothers and I were talking about Obama’s order to shut down Guantanamo bay.  I expressed my disappointment over Obama not saying anything to condemn Israel’s attacks on Gaza, but then a fellow Muslim brother told me that the expectation level for Obama is so high that if he makes one little mistake, we get very critical of him.  This needs to change, he encouraged.  We shouldn’t be too quick to judge.  As our discussion carried on, I decided to make my own list of “Pros” and “Cons” about Obama’s Presidency in respect to issues that concern many Muslim-Americans.

Pros:

1.  His name is Barack Husayn Obama.  Whether people like it or not, he has a Muslim background.  Though there are conflicting reports, it looks like his grandmother, Sarah Husayn Obama, is a Muslim.  It is also clear that he has Muslim relatives.  I personally believe this is a very positive sign because it will most likely make him more sympathetic to the Muslim world (as well as the struggles of Muslim-Americans).  This would give him more credibility and respect in the Muslim world than any other American president.

2.  According to the official website for the White House, the Obama administration promises to end racial profiling.  As the agenda states:  “President Obama and Vice President Biden will ban racial profiling by federal law enforcement agencies and provide federal incentives to state and local police departments to prohibit the practice.”

3.  President Obama has already signed the executive orders to shut down Guantanamo Bay within a year.  It is truly comforting that the new President has acted so swiftly to prohibit unlawful methods of prisoner abuse and torture.  Muslims-Americans, as well as Muslims around the world, are still outraged by how the Bush administration stood by silently while interrogators desecrated Qur’ans and flushed them down toilets in order to intimidate detainees.

4.  Diplomacy with Iran.  This was one of the many issues that made Muslim-Americans distance themselves from John McCain.  Although the Obama administration claims to perceive Iran as a “threat,” it promises to engage in direct diplomacy with  its leadership.  I would like to think that Obama already acknowledges the fact that Iran has a Jewish population of over 25,000 and even has Jewish representation in the Iranian parliament.  One would hope that the Obama administration noticed the Iranian Jews who took to the streets of Iran and protested against Israel’s attacks in Gaza.

Cons:

1.  Afghanistan and Pakistan.  According to the official White House website, the Obama administration promises to “refocus American resources on the greatest threat to our security — the resurgence of al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan. They will increase our troop levels in Afghanistan, press our allies in NATO to do the same, and dedicate more resources to revitalize Afghanistan’s economic development. Obama and Biden will demand the Afghan government do more, including cracking down on corruption and the illicit opium trade” (emphasis added).  Reading this statement makes one ask:  “Weren’t we voting for an anti-war President?”  In regards to Pakistan, “Obama and Biden will increase nonmilitary aid to Pakistan and hold them accountable for security in the border region with Afghanistan.”  It doesn’t make sense to me why the Obama administration would increase troop levels in Afghanistan and yet not send military aid to Pakistan.  As I mentioned in another post of mine, Pakistan has suffered (and continues to suffer) a great deal when it comes to combating the Taliban.  It’s rather unsettling how Obama doesn’t seem to recognize this.

2.  Hilary Clinton, Joe Biden, and Rahm Emanuel are all in Obama’s cabinet.  Hilary Clinton once stated she would “obliterate Iran,” Joe Biden is a self-proclaimed Zionist, and Rahm Emanuel served in the Israeli military and is very pro-Israel.  I know Obama has the final say on things, but one cannot help but worry about his cabinet’s potential influences.

3.  Israel.  Will we finally see a president who takes a strong stance against Israel’s military occupation of the Palestinian people?  Will we finally see a president who will sincerely help the Israelis and Palestinians come to a resolution without vilifying the Palestinians?  Or are we going to see the same failed policies of the Bush administration?  It should be obvious to people by now that AIPAC has an immense influence on U.S. politics.  It’s hard to imagine someone getting elected president of the United States without supporting AIPAC and the state of Israel.

4.  Obama may fail to understand the Muslim world in the same way Bush failed to.  During Obama’s speech on inauguration day, he said:  “To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict or blame their society’s ills on the West, know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy…”  He’s clearly addressing the Muslim world here and what’s so frustrating is that this statement paints the same image that Bush presented, i.e. the Muslim world is “destroying” and killing people without any reason. Of course there is violence taking place in the Muslim world, but what triggered that violence? You look at Iraq, and you’ll see that violence erupted in the form of resistance against U.S. invasion and occupation. You look at Palestine, and you see violent resistance against the brutal Israeli military occupation.  Obama continued and said:  “The world will judge you on what you build, not what you destroy…” Well if Iraq, Palestine, and Afghanistan get a chance to build instead of getting bombed, then I’m sure things would be much different.  And wasn’t Israel recently bombing innocent people and destroying places like schools, Mosques, and hospitals?

Anyway, these are just a few “Pros” and “Cons” that I thought of the other night.  I’m sure others have more to add.  I want to believe Obama can bring a positive change.  I can’t imagine how a man like him can sit down and speak to the late Palestinian academic, Edward Said, and then (many years later) kiss up to Israel and AIPAC.  I can’t imagine how a man like him could speak to Rashid Khalidi and not see the oppression taking place against the Palestinians.  I sincerely hope that my worries about him are wrong.  I’d rather be cautiously optimistic and suprised than be overly enthusiastic and end up feeling disappointed and fooled.

The Day “24″ Became Academic Material

I felt my heart drop when my professor for “Mass Media and Society” announced that we were going to watch “24” for the entire three hours of class. It took me a moment to overcome the shock and sort things out in my mind: “This is the same ‘24’ I’m thinking about, right? The television show where American-Muslims are illegally locked up in detention centers?” After self-confirmation, I confidently raised my hand.

“May I ask why we’re watching ‘24’?” I asked politely.

My professor kindly explained, “I believe ‘24’ had some positive influences on how the U.S. government treats prisoners and I also would argue that it played a huge role for the Obama campaign since the show has an African-American President. I really believe it helped prepare the country for that.” I’m paraphrasing here, but that’s what she basically said. I was sure she was referring to Guantanamo Bay when she mentioned the U.S. military’s treatment of prisoners, but it confused me how criticism of prisoner abuse would cancel out the show’s stereotypical portrayal of Muslims and Arabs as terrorists? And the Obama thing was just absurd in my opinion.

“It’s just odd to me,” I said, “because more than anything, I strongly feel that the show vilifies Muslims and the religion of Islam. These stereotypical images are very hurtful to the Muslim community.”

As I said this, I saw heads turning and eyes staring at me. I don’t know anyone in the class because we only meet once a week, so I wasn’t expecting any support, but after the professor responded and said something completely irrelevant to what I said, I couldn’t believe people remained silent.

She mentioned the film, “Crash,” and expressed that she felt discriminated against since there were no Jews in the film. My initial reaction was: what does that have to do with “24” and the representation of Muslims? Was she suggesting that every group is fairly misrepresented in the media or was she just trying to dodge my points?

“I understand that,” I replied, “but at least the movie doesn’t depict the Jewish people as terrorists or in a negative light.” Then I brought us back on topic, “In ‘24’, we only see Muslims being associated with terrorism.”

She interrupted and said there were episodes where a “good Muslim” helped the American protagonists fight against the Muslim terrorists. I knew she was referring to Alexander Siddig’s character who is an “ex-terrorist” and pretty much represents every stereotype that right-wing pundits want us to think about “moderate Muslims,” i.e. (1) they’re at first resistant to help the U.S. because they’re worried about being “puppets”, (2) they’re paranoid about speaking out against “Islamic jihadists”, and (3) they’re considered ‘traitors’ by fellow Muslims if they condemn terrorism. I skipped this critique of Alexander Siddig’s character and just simply said, “but the bad guys are still Muslim, and having a ‘good Muslim’ character doesn’t mean the show is exempt from being racist or Islamophobic.” As usual – whenever I feel it is relevant – I mentioned Spike Lee’s film, “Bamboozled,” where a female White media consultant says to the Black characters that she can’t be racist because she has Black friends and a Ph.D. in African-American studies. Of course, this is untrue; anyone can be racist, no matter what.

I observed my classmates around me. They were giggling, laughing, scoffing, whispering, or giving me looks that suggested that they anxiously wanted me to shut up so we can just watch the show. This made me feel very uncomfortable, but I told myself to stand my ground.

Again, she went off topic and spoke about Italians and Jews being stereotyped in Hollywood films. I quickly interjected and said, “but there are many positive representations of Italians and Jews as well. Some of the greatest actors, actresses, and filmmakers in Hollywood are Italian or Jewish. The difference with Muslims is that there aren’t any memorable and positive depictions of them. If you’re going to show ‘24’, then are you going to show an Arab film or a film with Muslims? I think that would be fair.”

At this point, I could hear my voice strain. I was frustrated that she was not understanding and empathizing with me. I mentioned statistics of hate crimes and discriminatory acts against Muslim-Americans ever since 9/11, I spoke about the Islamophobia in the recent presidential elections, and I reemphasized how offensive television shows like “24” are.

“There are no Muslim characters in the episodes that I’m showing” she responded. “If I felt they were going to be anti-Islamic, I wouldn’t show them.”

Was this supposed to make me feel better? Regardless if there were no Muslim characters in the episodes she was showing, the association is still there. I simply nodded and said “ok.”

Two or three years ago, I would have walked out of class, but I chose to stick around just to watch what “progressive” message she was pulling out of these shows. But there were none. I only saw sexism and stereotypes.

There were no Muslims in the episodes she showed, but there was a White female terrorist who has sex with a man in the bathroom of an airplane just to nab his ID – basically suggesting that women have to use their bodies to get what they want. Then the camera lingers on her bare legs and almost gives us a peak beneath her skirt – this is known as the “Male Gaze” (women being depicted in a way that men want to see them).  Meanwhile, the protagonist’s daughter sneaks out of her house to party with guys, but then realizes that she made the wrong decision and that she should have listened to her parents – apparently, the writers don’t think women can make smart decisions on their own. Oh and the protagonist’s female partner turns out to be the villain at the end of the episode – of course, women are not be trusted!

I remember sitting there and thinking: How is this academic material? What’s the point? We don’t even learn much about the African-American President because he’s too busy receiving assassination threats.

I left the class feeling ignored and pushed out. I heard other students speaking to my professor about some upcoming episode, and my professor responded cheerfully about when and where she bought the second or third season on DVD. She did not bother to speak to me after class, write me an e-mail, or talk to me on our last class. I walked to the campus parking lot that night feeling very alone and unsupported. Later on, I thought perhaps there were a few students who agreed with me and just didn’t speak up, but at the time, I felt like no one cared. It really hurt me, and I don’t know if others will understand, but I felt very insignificant. No human being should feel marginalized or alienated just because of their race, religion, culture, gender, sexual orientation, etc. No student should ever feel shut out.

I was happy to receive support from my inter-cultural communication’s professor, who even suggested that we address this issue professionally by writing to the education board. I pray that all students, no matter what their situation is, are blessed with the kind of support that my inter-cultural communication’s professor showed me. She ended class a half hour early just to speak to me. Like her, we all need to understand that it’s important to empathize with individuals. We shouldn’t just react to their words, but their feelings. We need to be strong for them. We need to be supportive for them.

Otherwise, what does it mean to be an educator?

Federal Judge Orders Release of Chinese Muslims

The following article by William Glaberson reports the release of 17 Guantanamo bay detainees.  Federal District Judge Ricardo M. Urbina admirably defends himself against goverment arguments by stating that the American Constitution prohibits imprisonment without charges.  This is a step in the right direction, but as detainees are released, many of them have been traumatized by the abusive treatment of their captors.  After reading Glaberson’s article, I found myself thinking about the hardships these 17 men endured.  How many more innocent people are locked behind bars without charges, and how does this experience impact their lives?  These are questions that we must reflect upon since they lead to issues that need to be further examined and discussed.

William Glaberson’s article is posted below.  It was originally published at “The New York Times.”

WASHINGTON — A federal judge on Tuesday ordered the Bush administration to immediately release 17 Chinese Muslims who have been held for seven years at Guantánamo Bay, and to allow them to stay in the United States, because they are no longer considered enemy combatants.

The ruling, handed down by Federal District Judge Ricardo M. Urbina, marked the first time that any United States court rejected government arguments and ordered the release of detainees from Guantánamo Bay, an American naval base in Cuba, since the detention center there opened in 2002.

Judge Urbina said that the detention of the 17 prisoners — members of the Uighur ethnic group, a restive Muslim minority in western China — was unlawful, noting that the Constitution prohibits indefinite imprisonment without charges.

“I think the moment has arrived for the court to shine the light of constitutionality on the reasons for the detention,” he said.

The judge ordered the 17 detainees, all of whom are men, brought to his courtroom next Friday, but the government suggested that it would immediately appeal the ruling, and that perhaps immigration officials might detain the men on their arrival in the United States.

The judge reacted angrily, saying he did not want the detainees molested by anyone in the government, in what he called an urgent matter.

“There was a pressing need to have these people, who have been incarcerated for seven years — to have those conditions changed,” Judge Urbina said.

He rejected a request from the Justice Department for a stay of his orders, suggesting that he was impatient with the government. “All of this means more delay,” he said, “and delay is the name of the game up until this point.”

The Uighurs, who were detained in Afghanistan in 2002, say they have never been enemies of the United States. They were cleared of suspicion in 2004, but they have remained in detention because of controversy over where they could go. They say they would be persecuted or killed if they were returned to China, but efforts to find a home for them have been complicated by fears in many countries of diplomatic reprisals from China.

In 2006, Albania gave refuge to five Uighurs from Guantánamo despite protests from the Chinese government. The Bush administration, which has refused to admit the other 17 to the United States, said it had failed to find any other country willing to take them.

On Tuesday, the Chinese government demanded that all Uighurs held at Guantánamo Bay be repatriated to China.

In June, federal appeals judges issued a decision that ridiculed as inadequate the Pentagon’s secret evidence for holding one of the Uighurs, Huzaifa Parhat, a former fruit peddler who said he had gone to Afghanistan to escape China.The government argued that the 17 detainees should be held at Guantánamo Bay until a country could be found for them. In filings, Justice Department lawyers argued that while Judge Urbina could hear the Uighurs’ case, he could not order their release because the judiciary “simply has no authority” to do so.

The Justice Department contended that the government’s executive branch, not the judicial branch, had the authority to conclude military detentions, as it had in previous wars. It noted that in World War II, “no court ever questioned that it was solely for the political branches — not the courts” — to decide how Italian prisoners of war were handled.

P. Sabin Willett, one of the Uighurs’ lawyers, said such claims appeared to be laying the groundwork for government appeals.

When the Supreme Court ruled in June that detainees at Guantánamo Bay had the right to challenge their detention in federal court, the justices said that after more than six years of legal wrangling, the prisoners should have their cases heard quickly, because “the costs of delay can no longer be borne by those who are held in custody.”

Until now, none of the scores of cases brought by detainees have been resolved by any judge.

Since the Supreme Court issued its ruling, lawyers for most of the 255 detainees in Guantánamo Bay have pressed ahead with habeas corpus petitions, yet most of those cases have been delayed by battles over issues like whether some court sessions will be held in secret, whether detainees can attend them, and what level of proof will justify detention.

Some of the arguments made by the Justice Department appear to challenge the Supreme Court’s conclusion that the federal courts have a role in deciding the fate of the detainees. Officials and lawyers inside and outside of the government say the new legal confrontation suggests that the Bush administration will probably continue its defense of the detention camp until the end of President Bush’s term and that it is not likely to close the camp, as administration officials have said they would like to do.

“The legal issues that are being raised by the administration are going to take longer than the remaining time of the administration” to resolve, said Vijay Padmanabhan, an assistant professor at Cardozo Law School who was until July a State Department lawyer with responsibility for detainee issues.

“It is part of a broader strategy,” Mr. Padmanabhan added, “which is not to make difficult decisions about Guantánamo and leave it to the next president.”

Detainees’ advocates say that the administration is using the legal battle to delay judicial review of its evidence, while government lawyers argue that the cases are moving rapidly considering that they are unprecedented.

A Justice Department spokesman, Erik Ablin, said the government was working toward quick hearings for detainees, but was determined to take every precaution to avoid having dangerous people released. He added that “it is certainly the government’s goal to detain enemy combatants who are deemed a threat to the United States.”

Habeas corpus suits, which have their root in centuries-old English law, are generally streamlined proceedings for prisoners to force officials to explain why the prisoners are being held. The Guantánamo cases permitted by the Supreme Court’s ruling, Boumediene v. Bush, are to allow courts to review the government’s reasons for holding the men as enemy combatants.

The military’s enemy-combatant hearings, which the administration says permit indefinite detention, are separate from the Pentagon’s effort to prosecute some detainees in military commission trials.