Muslim-Americans Remember 9/11 and More

Today marks the 8th anniversary of the horrific attacks of September 11th, 2001.  As Americans reflect and mourn the loss of nearly 3,000 people, Muslim-Americans not only share their grief, but also express their own challenges amidst stereotyping, discrimination, racial profiling, and hate crimes.

As reported recently by Amy Sullivan in Time Magazine’s article, “Poll: Muslim Americans Still Struggle for Acceptance,” a new Pew Forum survey found that “nearly 40% of Americans still say they think Islam is more likely to encourage violence.”  CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) also recently expressed concern about the “spike in anti-Muslim incidents” during the month of Ramadan, including a man who opened fire on his Muslim neighbors.

Rather than detail other incidents that Muslim-Americans have experienced recently (as I did in my previous post), I think it’s really important to acknowledge how many Muslim-Americans have preserved their identities as both “Muslim” and “American” despite the Islamophobia they may have experienced.

Since 9/11, the Muslim lifestyle has been so incredibly politicized that is almost impossible for us to withdraw from politics and current events.  Even for Muslims who have no interest in politics, they are not immune to ignorant questions or bigoted remarks they may receive from others.  There are some members in my family, for instance, who would rather not talk about politics in public, but whenever they disclose their national origin or religious beliefs, they are asked about issues such as terrorism and, even worse, often expected to answer for it.

A common experience that frustrates many Muslim-Americans is when certain non-Muslims ask them, “Where are all the moderate Muslims?” or “Why don’t Muslims condemn terrorism?”  It’s a question that frustrates us because we know far too well that Muslims have been defining ourselves and speaking out against terrorism since before 9/11.  The problem is that (1) people are not listening, (2) mainstream media does a very poor job covering the majority of Muslims, (3) anti-Islamic propaganda films like “Obsession” drown out the efforts and voices of Muslims who are breaking stereotypes and misconceptions about Islam, and (4) not all of the “moderate Muslims” are superheroes.  Smile.

In other words, when you hear certain non-Muslims complain that “moderate Muslims” are “not speaking up,” it sounds as if they’re awaiting some kind of mythical, uber-westernized, secular Muslim leader to reveal a Superman costume beneath their clothes and miraculously destroy all of the “radical Muslim” groups on the planet.  The reality is that the majority of Muslim-Americans do not have any kind “special link” or “connection” with these militant groups, nor do they have much influence.  This is because most of the violence that ensues in the Muslim world has very little to do with religion, but rather with post-colonialist liberation ideologies.

This is not to say that Muslim-Americans shouldn’t speak out.  As I have mentioned above, we have been speaking out, and we continue to do so.  There are brilliant Muslim-American authors and writers like Sumbul Ali-Karamali, Reza Aslan, Eboo Patel, and Dalia Mogahed who not only dispel stereotypes, but also enlighten Muslims and non-Muslims alike about what Islam truly is, as opposed to what is filtered in the mainstream media.  Also worth mentioning are the countless Muslim bloggers who engage in intra-community and inter-community dialogue, as well as analyzing stereotypical representations of their community in all forms of media.  Muslim feminists, in particular, have excellent outlets such as Muslimah Media Watch and Altmuslimah.

Muslims speak out in classrooms, on college campuses, in Mosques, in workplaces, and even through art, such as poetry, spoken word, film, and literature.  Across the nation, Mosques and Islamic Centers collaborate with Christians and Jews for progressive inter-faith and inter-cultural programs and events.  This Ramadan, for example, I saw events on my Facebook page about Synagogues holding Iftar dinners for Muslims.  There have been fundraisers for all kinds of causes, including for the displaced Pakistanis in Swat Valley - a humanitarian crises that was largely caused by the Taliban invasion of that region.

In Sumbul Ali-Karamali’s book, “The Muslim Next Door,” she mentions how the media isolates the Muslim voice in favor of controversial images that only promote Islamophobia.  Images of Palestinians dancing in the streets after 9/11 was broadcast throughout the western mainstream media, but what the media didn’t show were the Palestinians who participated in candlelight vigils for the 9/11 victims.  There is also a debate on whether or not the video tape of Palestinians was just archived footage used for political purposes, so for all we know, the images were not responsibly used by certain media outlets.  The media also failed to mention that Muslim countries like Egypt, Pakistan, Turkey, and Indonesia — along with Islamic religious leaders like the Saudi Mufti — condemned the 9/11 attacks.  Nothing was mentioned about the Fatwa that was issued against Osama bin Laden, stating that he could not call himself a Muslim.  Nothing was said about Iran holding candlelight vigils for 9/11 victims either.  Astonishingly, hardly anything is ever reported on the efforts of organizations like CAIR, which has been strongly condemning all acts of violence around the world, whether they’re committed by Muslims or non-Muslims.

For me, the victims of 9/11 were not only the 3,000 lost in the attacks, but also the Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, and non-Muslim Arabs and Iranians who were murdered, beaten, discriminated against, illegally detained, and subjected to racial profiling, humiliation, and the vilification of their way of life in the aftermath.  When Islamophobes ask Muslims to apologize for 9/11, it is not only offensive and insulting, but also reveals intolerance and bigotry.  No one — Muslim or non-Muslim — should ever feel guilty about an atrocity that they had nothing to do with.  No one should apologize for a crime that they didn’t even commit.  No child should be afraid to go to school where other students wear shirts that say “Islam is of the Devil.” No child should have to ask their parents, “Why do they hate Muslims?”

There is no place for this kind of hate and intolerance.  There is no place for discrimination and prejudice.  It does not reflect the true character of Islam or America or the very nature of what it means to be a human being.  We have to step outside of ourselves, empathize with others, understand each other, and build strong bridges for our future.  We don’t want our children to be deal with stereotypes and hate crimes that we may have suffered, and we don’t want them to answer for atrocities that happened way before they are even born.

For me, to be a Muslim and American is to understand that there is always hope and progress.  From my personal experiences, I know that I have met and worked with a lot of wonderful people, from all walks of life, and it reminds me that there is a lot to be cherished. Muslim-Americans are integrated in American society, and as President Obama said while hosting an Iftar dinner at the White House, “Islam, as we know it, is part of America.”

We have been coexisting with our fellow human beings for centuries, and we will continue to do so.

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)

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.”

Critics of U.N. Anti-Blasphemy Resolution Overlook Opportunities for Global Dialogue

By Jehanzeb Dar

Much is being made about the U.N. Anti-Blasphemy Resolution, which calls upon member nations, including the United States, to combat defamation of religion — Islam in particular.  Critics of the resolution include CNN’s Lou Dobbs, who describes the opposition against the resolution as a “fight for free speech,” author Christopher Hitchens, and Islamophobes around the blogosphere who scathingly label the resolution a step towards “spreading Sharia law to the West.”

The resolution, “Combating the Defamation of Religion,” was adopted in 2007 and “stresses the need to effectively combat defamation of all religions and incitement to religious hatred, against Islam and Muslims in particular.”  Unsurprisingly, religious groups and free-speech advocates in the United States accuse the resolution of impeding on constitutional rights such as freedom of expression.  John Bolton, former U.N. Ambassador, comments:  “It’s obviously intended to have an intimidating effect on people expressing criticism of radical Islam, and the idea that you can have a defamation of a religion like this, I think, is a concept fundamentally foreign to our system of free expression in the United States.”

I’ve noticed a lot of bloggers terming this issue “freedom under fire” and I see a lot of Islamophobes pouncing on it since it “scores points” for their “argument” that Muslims want to “impose Sharia law.”  What I see missing from these reactions are efforts to engage in global dialogue between the Muslim and non-Muslim worlds.  Rather than recognizing the importance of much-needed dialogue, Lou Dobbs and Christopher Hitchens spend about seven minutes defending freedom of expression, accusing the U.N. of being a “totalitarian” and “authoritarian organization,” and resorting to typical fear-mongering tactics by saying there are “Muslims who are prepared to use violence at the drop of a hat.”  Dobbs and Hitchens present us with a very singular, misconstrued, and stereotypical perspective on the situation instead of acknowledging social problems such as annually rising hate crimes and discriminatory acts against Muslims in the West, which clearly contribute to the formation of this particular U.N. resolution.

The fact of the matter is that this is a very complicated issue.  Personally, I find the U.N. anti-blasphemy resolution flawed.  Although the resolution aims to prevent violence and discrimination against people of any religious background, I believe the defamation laws can be abused by governments.  Individuals should be allowed to express their views and opinions about religions and cultures without worrying about being criminalized.  I am not against the idea of people criticizing Islam; surely everyone is entitled to their opinion, but what I am against is dehumanization and vilification of religions and entire groups of people.  There is a difference between constructive criticism and hate speech, the latter has the potential to lead to discrimination and hate crimes.  One could argue that organizations like the KKK are entitled to “freedom of speech,” but when they advocate violence towards African-Americans, it no longer complies with the American constitution.

The “Combating the Defamation of Religion” resolution was introduced by the Organization of the Islamic Conference.  The fact that the resolution stems from a Muslim organization should indicate the importance of dialogue rather than perceiving the idea as an attempt to “impose Sharia law in the West.”  As I mentioned, I do not support the resolution, but I think it raises an important opportunity for Muslim and non-Muslim communities to achieve a richer and empathetic understanding about issues related to vilification of Islam in mainstream media, pop culture, and newspapers.  During the Muslim Holy Month of Ramadan in 2008, for example, the Clarion Fund decided to distribute millions of anti-Islamic DVDs entitled “Obsession” to swing states in the U.S.  Although there are those who continue to argue that the film is an exercise of “freedom of expression,” the larger issue that is often ignored is how Islamophobic imagery was distributed on a massive scale.  Whenever Muslims protested against the DVD and wrote letters to their newspapers, they were often accused of being “over-sensitive” or “impeding on American values.”  Muslim voices were hardly given a chance to voice their own opinions about the DVD and how it made them feel.  Instead, their voices were lost and dumped into a box of Islamophobic generalizations.

The argument that people like Dobbs and Hitchens don’t seem interested in is that dehumanization and vilification of a religion and/or entire group of people is an inevitable companion of war.  In other words, in order to successfully rally supporters for war, one needs to establish an immensely contrasting divide between “us” and “them.”  Demonizing the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, in the Danish cartoons is an example of attacking the very heart of Muslims and reinforcing the “differences” between non-Muslims and Muslims, not just in the Islamic world, but also within the West.  The Danish cartoons also generated such a negative perception and attitude towards the Prophet Muhammad that CAIR (the Council for American-Islamic Relations) mobilized to hold seminars to educate and enlighten non-Muslims about the truth of the Prophet.  Muslims wouldn’t have held educational programs if they weren’t so concerned about the general public’s perception of their religion after the Danish cartoons and riots.  The mainstream media didn’t seem to be concerned with these stories because they were too busy covering the violent riots in the Muslim world.  The inability to empathize with the sentiments of Muslims all over the world (including in the West) represents a failure to establish communication and understanding.

It is important for freedom of speech to be protected, but when Muslim-Americans experience ignorance, verbal abuse, physical assault, and vandalism, it is society’s responsibility to recognize that they, like every other American citizen, deserve to be treated equally regardless of their skin color, culture, and religious background.  Sensitive issues need to be discussed fairly and openly between Muslim and non-Muslim communities, otherwise stereotypes and misunderstandings will continue to persist.  Islamophobic rhetoric and blindly defending “free speech” are just obstacles and barriers that are created to prevent necessary dialogue.  If people like Lou Dobbs and Christopher Hitchens took the opportunity to engage in respectful and open-minded discussions with Muslim-Americans, they may empathize with how Islamophobic material, like the Danish cartoons and the “Obsession” DVD, have been used to bully, harass, and discriminate against Muslims in the West.

In the end,  it is not simply a matter of “freedom of speech.”  It’s a matter of understanding one another better.  The Muslim-American experience needs to stop being treated as something “foreign;” on the contrary it is an American story that isn’t being given enough voice.  As Muslim students, who protested the Danish cartoons in Washington D.C., wrote on their banners, “Freedom of Speech Does Not Equal Freedom to Hate.”

Know Your Islam: Speak Out Against Domestic Violence

Before I discuss the recent brutal beheading of Aasiya Zubair, a Muslim-American mother of four, I would like to stress on something that is very important and close to my heart: The majority of Muslims should never apologize or be held accountable for the atrocious actions of others who happen to self-identify as Muslim. The murder of Aasiya Zubair could have happened to anyone, of any religious and/or ethnic group, and the actions of her murderer, Muzzammil Hassan, should never be associated with Islam. Anyone who studies Islam honestly will understand that Mr. Hassan’s actions clearly violated Islamic teachings, therefore the last thing that anyone should call this murder is “Islamic.” It’s very frustrating when I read the ignorant comments posted under articles around the blogosphere — comments like, “Violence against women is considered a religious and cultural duty in the [Muslim] Ummah; don’t try to deny it,” or “Until we in the west see better behavior and adherence to accepted social values from Muslims, I guess we remain to be convinced.” Such ignorance doesn’t help our efforts at all; instead it makes things more difficult. If there weren’t so many ignorant Islamophobes attacking Islam and blaming Muslims for not displaying “accepted social values,” then I wouldn’t have written this paragraph in the first place.

In any case, Muslims must speak out against this horrendous crime not because we’re responsible or should apologize for it, but because this kind of behavior cannot, should not, and will not be tolerated in our community. We, as Muslims, need to turn inward and acknowledge the problems within our communities. It was comforting to see such an immediate reaction from Muslim organizations to call for swift action against domestic violence. As cited by Wajahat Ali, Imam Mohamed Hagmagid Ali, Vice-President of The Islamic Society of North America, wrote a public response:

Our community needs to take a strong stand against abusive spouses…This is a wake up call to all of us, that violence against women is real and can not be ignored. It must be addressed collectively by every member of our community.

As some will argue, this murder was due to “culture,” but what’s problematic about saying this is that the definition of culture gets limited to barbarism and backwardness. In actuality, culture cannot be fixated to these stereotypes because it is, in fact, diverse, flexible, and adaptable. This is not to deny the incredible amount of misogyny that is present in certain Muslim societies, it’s simply to put the true meaning of culture into perspective. To blame a culture for something like Aasiya Zubair’s murder would be impossible without asking: Which culture? Pakistani culture? Okay, what is Pakistani culture? There is no one and singular form of culture because culture is reactive to stimuli. It gets shaped and reshaped, so the problem is not culture itself, but rather how we shape culture. A culture influenced heavily by the mystical traditions of Islam, for example, may differ immensely from a culture influenced heavily by Wahabism in terms of gender issues. Or perhaps there is no religious stimuli and the culture is more secular than anything else. Anyway, my point here is that we need to understand the diversity of culture instead of easily pointing our fingers at it.

But the reality is that there are cultures that have been shaped to be more sexist and misogynistic than others. In respect to the Muslim community, these issues need to addressed because our Way of Life, Islam, strictly condemns this kind of behavior. I do not intend to speak of Islam in a limited sense; on the contrary, when I speak about Islam, I am also speaking about our God-given human rights and how every human being, regardless of their gender, race, culture, religion, sexual orientation, etc. deserves to enjoy their humanity. As the Qur’an says repeatedly, Allah’s grace is Infinite. He is All-Embracing, All-Forgiving; Most Merciful, Most Compassionate. The Qur’an is clear about gender equality, and even historically, the revelations abolished primitive practices like female infanticide and abuse towards women. Many may say they’re frustrated with the Muslim community because the lessons of compassion, gender equality, and Love are right there in front of us, but people also need to understand something else, which is often overlooked: Not everyone who self-identifies as a Muslim is a practicing Muslim. And not every practicing Muslim is a “perfect Muslim.” Sorry to disappoint the Islamophobes, but there is no such things as a perfect human being, let alone a perfect Muslim. A Muslim, just like everyone else, is not immune to sexism, misogyny, anger, hatred, violence, and murder. Did Mr. Hassan self-identify as Muslim? Yes. Did he speak out against Islamophobia through Bridges TV, a television network he co-founded? Yes. Did his murder reflect Islamic teachings. No.

Someone on “Yahoo” asked the question: “What does this murder say about Muslims?” And in my response, I said: This atrocious crime does not say anything about Muslims. To generalize about an entire group of people is not only inaccurate, but it is also a very uneducated thing to say. When we hear stories about a Texas mother drowning her own children, her religion is never blamed or even mentioned. Whenever Muslims commit crimes and murder, on the other hand, it is unanimously assumed that it was because of their religion.

Islam prohibits the killing of other human beings. Even during war, which is strictly permitted in self-defense, the Qur’an prohibits the killing of innocent people.

[5:32] … we decreed for the Children of Israel that anyone who murders any person who had not committed murder or caused corruption in the land, it shall be as if he murdered all the people. And anyone who saves a life, it shall be as if he saved the lives of all the people. Our messengers went to them with clear proofs and revelations, but most of them, after all this, are still transgressing.

As the Hadith (sayings of the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him) say:

A wife of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said: (The Prophet) never hit anyone with his hand, neither a woman nor a servant.” (Sahih Muslim, Hadith 1082)

The Prophet said: “The most perfect Muslim in the matter of faith is someone who has excellent behavior; and the best among you are those who behave best toward their wives.” (Al-Tirmidhi, Hadith 106)

These are the kind of teachings that we need to re-emphasize on in our communities . We also need to open our doors a little more and understand what it truly means to be a community. For too long do we push people out of the Mosques and Islamic conventions without even realizing it. Should any issue of domestic violence arise, Muslims should feel comfortable and secure about reporting these incidents instead of worrying about being stigmatized. Insha’Allah, as Muslims across North America address this issue, I hope it remains persistent and creates new opportunities to prevent things like this from happening again. I also hope that certain non-Muslim groups realize that such violence exists everywhere and, contrary to what some say, is not and never has been considered a “cultural and religious duty” for Muslims.

May Allah bless Aasiya Zubair’s soul and grant her justice and peace. Ameen.

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.