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.

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.”

Lisa Valentine: Hijab and Expletives

The following article was written by Faith, a contributing writer for Muslimah Media Watch (MMW). You can read the original post by clicking here.

American hijabis often have a lot to think about when they step outside their doors. Will we be denied a job because of hijab? Will we be asked to take off our hijabs at work or school? Will our hijabs make us a target for racists and xenophobes? Will we be pulled out of line at the airport because of our hijabs? However, one place we don’t expect hijab to cause us issue is in court. In courtrooms throughout the U.S., Muslim women wear hijab and Muslim men wear kufis if they’re inclined to do so. My mother, who is a social worker, wears hijab when accompanying clients to court.

So it must have been completely shocking for Lisa Valentine to be denied entry into a Georgia courtroom because of her headscarf. I’m sure it was one of the most racist incidents in her entire life. Despite the fact that Valentine’s civil rights were violated and this incident was inspired by racism, the media’s coverage of Lisa Valentine’s ordeal has been mixed at best.

One constant issue that I have in the reporting of Valentine’s ordeal is the reporting of her using a swear word. Every article and news clip on this story has mentioned it. “When she turned to leave and uttered an expletive, Hall said a bailiff handcuffed her and took her before the judge.” “Frustrated at being prevented from entering the court, the woman reportedly uttered an expletive and sought to leave the area.“

Why is this fact so important to mention in every news story about Lisa Valentine? Wouldn’t a lot of people use an expletive if they were denied access to court? It’s almost as if the mention of Valentine’s use of a swear word is being reported as a cause for her arrest instead of a law that was abused by the bailiff and the judge. I wonder if the mention of Valentine using an expletive is to make her seem at fault or to simply make hijabis look bad. Either way, I found the constant mention of this fact to be really annoying and unnecessary. She cursed. So what? No matter what Valentine said, there’s no reason why she should have been arrested and sentenced to ten days in court.

Additionally, the coverage of Valentine’s ordeal hasn’t focused much on the racial dimensions of the incident. Valentine’s civil rights were violated because she is a Muslim. Even though she was barred from the court because of her “headwear”, her headwear was religious in nature. There’s little mention of the fact that Valentine’s headwear wasn’t ordinary headwear at all but part of her religious attire. In most of the stories I’ve read on Valentine, this distinction isn’t made except by Valentine herself.

Also, I have seen no discussion of how xenophobia and Islamophobia probably influenced what happened. I doubt that a nun would be asked to take off her habit in court because Catholics are not seen as foreign. However, Islam and symbols associated with it (such as hijab) are. Without looking at the issues at these issues, the stories on Valentine seem incomplete.

Husayn is a Beautiful Name

As human beings, we should be outraged and disgusted by the kind of racist and xenophobic behavior we’re seeing from McCain supporters. First, we heard GOP chair of Lehigh County, William Platt, emphasis on Barack Obama’s middle name, “Husayn” (my spelling), which caused an uproar of angry boos. Next, we heard supporters shout “kill him!” and “traitor!” Now, we see an old lady call Obama an “Arab” while several others shout “he’s a Muslim” and “he’s a terrorist!” as if (1) being a Muslim is a bad thing, and (2) being a Muslim means you’re a terrorist.

To his credit, Senator McCain condemned this kind of behavior and encouraged his supporters to be respectful, but this still doesn’t change his supporters’ perception of certain words like “Muslim” and “Arab,” or names like “Husayn.”

As a Muslim, what’s frustrating and upsetting to me is how racist and prejudice these attitudes are. As Eve Tahmincioglu of the Huffington Post writes, “So What If Obama Were a Muslim?” Has the word “Muslim” become an insult? If Obama was a Muslim, would that mean he’s incompatible with American values? If Obama was a Muslim, would that mean he’s incompatible with Judeo-Christian values? Absolutely not.

The common misconception is that Islam is completely foreign and alien from Christianity and Judaism, but in actuality, it is not. Islam, like Christianity and Judaism, is an Abrahamic religion that began in the Middle-East. By Abrahamic religion, I mean Muslims, Christians, and Jews all descend from Abraham, peace be upon him. Prophet Muhammad is a descendant of Ishmael through his second son, Kedar — Ishmael being the first son of Abraham, of course (peace be upon them all). If one opens the Qur’an, he/she will find familiar names like Noah, Moses, Isaac, Joseph, Jonah, Solomon, David, Jesus, Mary, etc. In fact, the Qur’an mentions Moses and Jesus by name more than Muhammad. To a Christian or Jew, does this sound like a completely “foreign” religion to you?

Instead of focusing on what we share, certain McCain supporters and media outlets reinforce the faulty idea that Islam is “foreign” and “incompatible” with the West. If we listened to this kind of logic, then shouldn’t we say the same thing about Jesus, a Middle-Eastern man who spoke a Middle-Eastern language (Aramaic), wore Middle-Eastern clothes, and ate Middle-Eastern food? Of course not.

Another thing that is upsetting to me is that individuals who may not have had any exposure to Islam or Muslim cultures may not be aware of how beautiful the name Husayn is. Instead the name is vilified and associated with dictators and terrorists. Obama is not a Muslim — he’s a devout Christian — but his heritage includes Islam as his father and grandfather were Muslims, which explains why his middle name is Husayn.

“Husayn” means “good” and “handsome or beautiful one” in Arabic. Husayn is also the name of Prophet Muhammad’s grandson, who died courageously fighting against an oppressive and greedy regime. He is one of the most respected and Loved figures in the Islamic tradition. As I wrote in my poem about Husayn, he “stood boldly in the face of a thousand spears and swords, unyielding to the inhumanity of a cruel and vicious tyrant.” May God’s Love and Blessings be upon him.

With this in mind, it is offensive to Muslims when the name Husayn or the words “Muslim” or “Arab” are used to smear Obama and portray him in a negative light. It is offensive to Muslims when people equate “Muslim” or “Islam” with “terrorist” or “terrorism.” It is offensive to Muslims when it is preached that Islam doesn’t have a place in American politics. As I have written before, the fact that 20% of the African slaves forcefully brought to America were Muslim, not to mention the Muslim achievements in mathematics, medicine, and astronomy over the centuries, can we really say that Islam has no place in America?

One final note about those who shout “kill him!” “traitor!” and “terrorist” at McCain rallies whenever Obama’s name is mentioned: As many analysts and reporters have pointed out, Barack Husayn Obama deserves better than that. He has worked hard in America, he has worked hard in helping people in their communities, and he has taken that extra effort to reach out to people of all races, cultures, religions, and political parties.

Whether you agree with him or not, he deserves to be respected, and anyone who shouts “kill him” or calls him a “traitor” has serious personal issues that they need to sort out. It is not Obama’s middle name that is ugly, it is this attitude of inciting hatred and racism that is ugly.

Salaam, Shalom, Shlama, Peace

~ Jehanzeb

Casting Out: Exploring the Racialization of Muslims

The following is a brilliant article written by Fatemeh Fakhraie.  She reviews Sherene H. Razack’s latest book, Casting Out: The Eviction of Muslims from Western Law & Politics (2008), which discusses how the racialization of Islam (and Muslims) subsequently evicts them from Western politics and law. Fatemeh is the Editor-in-Chief for Muslimah Media Watch. This article first appeared on Racialicious.

I just finished reading Sherene H. Razack’s Casting Out: The Eviction of Muslims from Western Law & Politics (2008). And I gotta say, it blew me onto my ass.

Razack is the author of several books, including Looking White People in the Eye: Gender, Race, and Culture in Courtrooms and Classrooms, and her work in race theory definitely shows in Casting Out. She uses plenty of theory and excellent cross-racial examples to illustrate that what’s currently happening to Muslims in the West (racialization that results in “the expulsion of Muslims from the political community, a process that takes the form of stigmatization, surveillance, incarceration, torture, and bombing”) has happened to other groups before.

She first argues that Muslims are racialized through “race thinking”, which “divides up the world between the deserving and the undeserving, according to descent.” The racialization of Islam and Muslims is something the editors and I have been wanting to address on Racialicious for awhile, but I haven’t quite known how to begin; Razack’s book provides the perfect springboard.

Islam is represented in mainstream media as South/West Asian brown-skinned people who are bearded and turbaned or veiled and hidden: this racializes Islam.

Now, before you start typing a response that there are non-West Asian Muslims and that Muslim isn’t a race, re-read what I just wrote. There are Muslims in every country in the world, and they are all colors and sizes. But Western media representation of Islam and Muslims simplifies this world-wide group of people into one picture: that of a brown guy with a beard and a keffiyeh. His female counterpart is a brown woman with a veil. Reducing an entire group of people to these static images that have to context or history creates flat attributes (such as the incorrect assertion that West Asia = Muslim) that can be applied to anyone deemed in the “Muslim” category.

Razack argues “the eviction of Muslims from [the Western] political community is a racial process that begins with Muslims being marked as a different level of humanity and being assigned a separate and unequal place in the law.” (her emphasis) When Islam is racialized, the presentation of terrorism as Islamic thus racializes terrorism, especially when terrorism is illustrated by brown-skinned bearded South/West Asians. So, if terrorism is equated with Muslims, then we come to “widespread condemnation of bodies marked as ‘Muslim,’ and heightened support for punitive measures against them.”

Her book also examines three figures: the dangerous Muslim man, the imperiled Muslim woman, and the civilized European. She maps out the racialization and “race thinking” of and around these figures, and traces their roles in things such as the torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib, racial profiling, Western feminism’s call for improving the lives of Muslim women in North Africa and South/West Asia*, and fears of Sharia law taking over Western politics.

This is where Razack defragments the “culture clash” duality.

“The close connections between assertions of cultural difference and racism has meant that in white societies the smallest references to cultural differences between the European majority and the Third World peoples (Muslims in particular) triggers an instant chain of associations (the veil, female genital mutilation, arranged marriages) that ends with the declared superiority of European culture, imagined as a homogenous composite of values… Culture clash, where the West has values and modernity and the non-West has culture…”

The culture clash argument uses the flat, racialized images of Muslims and puts them in inherent opposition to the West, as if all Muslims everywhere are this one way and the only possible explanation for their being “this way” is because they are Muslims and that’s “their culture.” Razack sums this up nicely: “Cultural difference, understood as their cannibalism, their treatment of women, and their homophobia, justifies the savagery that the West metes out.”

(her emphases)

She then connects the culture clash to the expulsion of Muslims from Western law:

“The state’s central conceptual tool in suspending the rights of those suspected of involvement in terrorism or considered to have the potential to be terrorists has been the idea that Islam breeds a particular pre-modern subject, one who possesses a violent hatred of the West and who is not committed to the rule of law, respect for human rights and women’s rights, or democracy.”

And then she connects this expulsion to neo-colonialism and/or Western imperialism:

“The West is understood as culturally committed to the values of the Enlightenment, while the non-West remains incompletely modern at best, or hostile to modernity at worst. Within this conceptual framework, one often described as a clash of civilizations, it is the duty of modern peoples to bring pre-modern peoples in line.”

She draws great historical parallels between camp mentality in other times and what’s going on now, giving excellent analysis on how Southern plantations, Japanese internment camps, the Spanish Inquisition, etc., were earlier forms of the “race thinking” that is being enacted now in Iraq, Guantanamo Bay, and the suspension of civil liberties of Muslims and South/West Asians in Western countries. Not only are her parallels apt, but they’re very educational: in her comparison between Guantanamo Bay and Auschwitz, the Soviet gulags, refugee camps, etc., I learned the Guantanamo Bay had previously been used as a “holding center” for Haitians deemed an HIV threat under President Clinton. In her analysis of Abu Ghraib, she compared what happened there to Canadian peacekeeper violence against Somalians just a decade earlier—something I didn’t know about, either.

I had a difficulty with her focus on “Arabs and Muslims,” which I think is a bit reductive, given the heightened media attention on Iran and Pakistan, two non-Arab but predominately Muslim countries. Though I agree that Islam and Muslims have been racialized into being “brown” and perhaps even “Arab,” I still think it would be more beneficial to the argument if Razack had clarified that she was focusing on the treatment of North African and South/West Asian Muslims. Though she posits that all Muslims are racialized, I get caught up in her use of “Muslims” because most of her examples deal with North African and South/West Asian Muslims.

Also, the inclusion of John Walker Lindh and Jose Padilla in her argument about the racialization of Islam and terrorism would be an interesting one; they have been convicted as terrorists, but neither are North African or South/West Asian. Both are American citizens. Lindh is white and Muslim; he was treated just as badly as North African and South/West Asian detainees because he is Muslim. Padilla is Latino and Muslim. He was detained and his habeaus corpus was suspended just like North African and South/West Asian Muslim detainees. They are presented has having their American citizenship and ethnicities taken over by “brown” Islam, which Razack notes is often compared to disease with panicked media allegations that Islam is “spreading.”

This book, though only 180 actual pages, is a wealth of colonial and race theory. It’s dense, and written a bit academically, but worth any struggle. This book taught me more about colonialism, race thinking, and Orientalism than three university courses on Muslims (specifically, Muslim women, but still), and it’s the first book that’s really galvanized my viewpoints in a long time.

*I am deliberately using the cumbersome but geographically accurate term North Africa and South/West Asia instead of “Middle East,” which is a colonial term because it locates this geographic terrain in respect to the West.