No One “Hijacked” Islam

By Guest Contributor Jehanzeb, originally posted at Muslim Reverie

Last Thursday, I attended an event hosted by the Muslim Student Association as part of their peace and coexistence week.  The event was about raising awareness and appreciation for the various cultures within the Muslim community.  Muslims read their poems, played music, sang, and gave presentations on Sufism/Islamic spirituality.  There were many non-Muslims in attendance and it was great to hear how previous events during the week had excellent turnouts as well.  As I drove home, I felt like all of us made a huge difference.

When I checked my e-mail that night, a news report about a man opening fire at a military base appeared on the Yahoo homepage.  I prayed, as many Muslim-Americans did, that the shooter wasn’t a Muslim.  The last thing we needed the media to get hyped up about was a Muslim-American murdering fellow Americans in the armed forces.  When the man’s Muslim affiliation was revealed, I was devastated.

My thoughts and prayers went out to the victims and their friends and families.  Simultaneously, as details slowly unfolded and as CAIR (the Council on American-Islamic Relations) released immediate condemnations of the incident, I felt like we took one step forward, but then two steps backward.  I am still worried about a backlash on the Muslim community.  Muslim-Americans have been suffering from hate crimes, discriminatory acts, prejudice, and media stereotyping/propaganda since the atrocity on 9/11, and although many Muslim-Americans have been speaking out, polls and surveys have found that negative attitudes and perceptions of Islam and Muslims have been on the increase.

I am not surprised by the Islamophobia that has resulted from this.  It has been going on since September of 2001; what else is new?  In typical Islamophobic fashion, Senator Joe Lieberman called the incident an “act of Islamist extremism.” Despite warnings not to jump to conclusions from Army officials and the President himself, Lieberman concluded:   “There are very, very strong warning signs here that Dr. Hasan had become an Islamist extremist and, therefore, that this was a terrorist act,” Lieberman.

In other words, “terrorism” is a term reserved only for Muslims.  Yeah, we’ve been through this lesson before (see my post, “‘Terrorist’ Means ‘Muslim’”).

Conservative author, David Gaubatz, who has labeled President Obama a “Muslim” among other things, explicitly called for “a professional and legal backlash against the Muslim community and their leaders.”  If that is not advocating hate and violence against an entire group of people, then I don’t know what is!  Oh, and televangelist Pat Robertson threw in some Lovely words, too:  “You’re dealing with not a religion, you’re dealing with a political system, and I think we should treat it as such, and treat its adherents [Muslims] as such as we would members of the communist party, members of some fascist group.”

Raising suspicion about Muslims, vilifying Islam, and then expecting Muslims to answer or “explain” what happened (as if we have some kind of special “insight” into these things) is reflective of our society’s Islamophobia and inability to use its common sense.  When a White “Christian” man blows up a building in Oklahoma, his religion or race is not put on trial.  As Brian Ross writes:

When a couple of white kids shoot up a school, it is a tragedy, and a search for mental defect. Bring on a shooting at a military base that involves an Arab-American though, and the media does everything that it can to shout “TERRORISM” without really saying it.

Jerry Campbell, the president of the Claremont School of Theology, adds:

As a “Methodist-American,” I do not fear for my safety after a fellow Methodist commits a heinous crime… And the churches of my tradition have no need to renounce the deeds of an outlier when one of our own goes astray.  As a Methodist-American, these are not my realities.  But for Muslim communities, this is their America.

It is a relief to see General George Casey Jr., the Army chief of staff, expressing concerns for Muslim-Americans, especially Muslims serving in the military.  I have a relative serving in the military and I know these concerns resonate with Muslim-American soldiers deeply.  One of his statements bothered me though (emphases added):

To those members of the United States military who are Muslims, thank you for protecting our nation, thank you for standing up against the people who are trying to hijack your religion.”

It’s clear to me that General Casey Jr.’s concerns are genuine, but I think it’s important to break away from this false notion that Islam has been “hijacked.”  Islam has not been hijacked — not by Nidal Malik Hasan, not by Saddam Hussein, not by Osama bin Laden, and not even by corrupt and wealthy Muslim “leaders” in Muslim majority countries.  Sure, much of the violence committed by those who self-identify as Muslim contain religious symbolism or slogans, but there are many other complex factors that contribute to their violence.  It is not simply religion.

Anyone who has studied Edward Said or postcolonial theory would argue that most of the violence in places like Palestine, Iraq, and Afghanistan are a result of post-colonialist liberation ideologies.  Palestine is occupied by the oppressive Israeli military, and Iraq and Afghanistan have been invaded, bombed, and occupied by US forces.  It is impossible to imagine such war and chaos without resistance.  The military superpowers cannot stomp the boot of oppression upon the oppressed and expect them to submit without retaliation.  As we have seen, resistance from those parts of the world express themselves in religious manners — shouting “Allahu akbar,” citing the Qur’an and Hadith, and even interpreting the conflict as some sort of “cosmic battle.”  Similarly, there are complex factors to be taken into account when one questions the motives of Nidal Malik Hasan.  They do not justify or excuse his actions, but they make us see a larger picture instead of making ridiculous accusations that the religion of Islam had something to do with it.  Hasan acted upon himself, not because a religion “told him” to do so.  His opposition to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are clear, but murdering fellow Americans is not the Islamic way of dealing with this situation.  His decision to murder was his own as an individual and his case should be treated as such.

No one has changed the Qur’anic text.  No one has replaced the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, with another religious figure in our Islamic tradition.  Islam, like any religion, can be manipulated and used by extremists for their own radical ideologies, but the actual message of the religion is not closed off to interpretation.  It is open for interpretation, and it has been for centuries.  And perhaps the most important point of all, the overwhelming majority of Muslims — an estimated 1.5 billion people — are non-violent and interpret Islam as a peaceful religion.  How can Islam be “hijacked” when the majority of its followers do not resort to violence?

Muslims have never stopped defining themselves.  Islam is our way of life and no one “hijacks” that from us.  No one bars us from Islam or forces us to change the way we believe about our faith.  Furthermore, our identities are not limited to the stereotypes and Islamophobic nonsense spewed out by bigots and media personalities alike.  I am a Muslim, and I am also an American.  We have multiple identities just like everyone else.  Only now are we hearing about the 20,000+ Muslims serving in the military, but why did we need a horrible act of violence to occur in order for us to see this fact?  Why do we only need to ease fear and  “suspicion” about Muslim-Americans when murders are committed by members of all ethnic and religious groups?

Muslims around the world continue to speak out, as they always have been.  Acclaimed Muslim-American author, Kamran Pasha, has written a brilliant piece called, “The Big Lie About Muslim Silence on Terrorism.” His post includes an extensive list of Muslim leaders and organizations that have condemned violence all over the world.  If we were to accuse the non-Muslim White population of being inherently violent against other races or religious groups over the centuries, media and society would be demanding for their organizations to speak out and condemn the actions of those who share the same religious or racial background.  If we looked at the religious affiliations of those who committed murders, robberies, and other horrible crimes, we would be saying, “Christianity has been hijacked,” or “Judaism has been hijacked,” or “Hinduism has been hijacked,” and so on.

No one “hijacked” Islam.  If anything has been hijacked, it is our own common sense, otherwise we wouldn’t be so quick to generalize about a religion or an entire group of people before a sensible fellow comes along and helps us come to the realization that, “oh yeah, we don’t expect non-Muslim White people to answer for crimes and murders committed by other non-Muslim White people!”

Gee, why didn’t we think of that before?  How’s White privilege, for starters?

Share and Enjoy:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Google Bookmarks
  • NewsVine
  • Current
  • email
  • Print

Trackbacks & Pings

  1. Note to Muslims: Quit Apologizing. « Anger is My Motor on 03 Dec 2009 at 2:48 am

    [...] was reading a post on the race-pop culture-politics blog Racialicious about Nidal Hassan and the aftermath of the Fort Hood shootings, and the PR campaign by Muslim [...]

Comments

  1. Saffyre99 wrote:

    This bothers me a lot. Seems to be a lack of personal responsibility in this and many similar articles. Islam is a faith of peace, but there are some Islamic leaders who don’t preach it. And it can only be policed from the inside. Until Muslims stop saying that these violent acts are committed by “individuals” I fear there is no hope of stopping… See More them. They are NOT committed by individuals. There is a very organized effort happening under the guise of religion. Only other Muslims can effectively expose the lies and manipulations of the corrupt few. And they refuse to do so.

  2. Deaf Indian Muslim Anarchist wrote:

    No one has changed the Qur’anic text. No one has replaced the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, with another religious figure in our Islamic tradition. Islam, like any religion, can be manipulated and used by extremists for their own radical ideologies, but the actual message of the religion is not closed off to interpretation. It is open for interpretation, and it has been for centuries. And perhaps the most important point of all, the overwhelming majority of Muslims — an estimated 1.5 billion people — are non-violent and interpret Islam as a peaceful religion. How can Islam be “hijacked” when the majority of its followers do not resort to violence?

    EXACTLY. and this is the reason why I will NOT apologize to anyone, not to white people or to Americans, for what that fucking asshole did at Fort Hood. I didn’t do it, and neither did the majority of Muslims. It has nothing to do with Islam.

    People who demand that we Muslims should “apologize” for this incident, are morons. NO, I WILL NOT APOLOGIZE BECAUSE I DIDN’T DO ANYTHING WRONG, YOU FUCKING ASSHOLES!

    That dude was a mentally deranged, sick, psychotic man. I’m glad he’s paralyzed. Good riddance to him!!!

  3. Deaf Indian Muslim Anarchist wrote:

    This bothers me a lot. Seems to be a lack of personal responsibility in this and many similar articles. Islam is a faith of peace, but there are some Islamic leaders who don’t preach it. And it can only be policed from the inside. Until Muslims stop saying that these violent acts are committed by “individuals” I fear there is no hope of stopping… See More them. They are NOT committed by individuals. There is a very organized effort happening under the guise of religion. Only other Muslims can effectively expose the lies and manipulations of the corrupt few. And they refuse to do so.

    LOL. What a completely xenophobic, ignorant statement to make.

  4. Deaf Indian Muslim Anarchist wrote:

    Saffyre99, darling, didn’t you even read the fucking article? The author clearly made a list of individuals and leaders who spoke out against violence committed by Muslims or in the name of Islam.

    Many Muslims, including I, always speak out about this, but people like YOU, won’t listen. So therefore, it’s people like YOU who continue this cycle of prejudice and ignorance against Muslims.

    Thanks!

  5. Mike wrote:

    This article has a lot of great points, but I’m having trouble relating to the main “point.”

    I’m trying to put myself in your shoes… if people were to begin leveling “terrorist” accusations against atheist perpetrators, and someone said that these violent offenders were “hijacking atheism,” how would I feel?

    That phrase makes sense to me, in that a violent few would be robbing me of my public image as an atheist (which isn’t so great to start, but that’s another topic).

    Their actions, and the coverage of those actions by the media, would be stealing from me that aspect of my identity and lumping me with terrorists.

    I wouldn’t immediately interpret it as a statement that the concept of atheism has been altered in some way – just the public view of it. Can someone help me see why the “hijacking Islam” phrase strikes such a strong nerve?

  6. EMP wrote:

    @Saffyre99

    I pity you. You must have some burden apologizing for all the sins of your peers.

  7. Sobia wrote:

    @Saffyre99:

    I think DIMA already addressed your comment.

    I am always amazed at how Muslims are expected to “fix” the “problem” in their “community” of ONE BILLION PEOPLE. The day “moderate” Americans stop their country from their violent bullying, occupying, and oppressing of other nations (all the while giving Americans a bad name because you know Americans are still quite disliked around the world) will be the day I will accept the arguement of “why don’t Muslims fix this problem of extremism.” Until then, please make more logical arguements.

    @Mike:

    There are so many Muslims and Muslim organizations that are speaking out against extremism. Western media doesn’t talk about them. That doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Don’t believe everything you don’t hear. The media has decided to define us by the minority of extremists and not the majority of everyday, average, boring Muslims. That is not our doing. The majority of us are still average, boring people – it’s the way we’re covered in the media that’s the problem. Yes, there are stupid Muslims who do very stupid things. But for every one stupid Muslim there are 100 rational ones. Why not present them as well? Why not show them as well?

  8. Sobia wrote:

    @ Saffyre99:

    “Seems to be a lack of personal responsibility in this and many similar articles. ”

    Personal responsibility? Do tell, what is MY personal responsibility? What am I, a PhD candidate in urban Canada, born and raised in rural Canada, supposed to do about the extremists in the middle of Saudi Arabia?

  9. AMarie wrote:

    this is only semi-related, but Switzerland (that bastion of neutrality =P) just voted to ban the construction of minarets (despite the fact that there are only 4 in the entire nation- whereas there are 150 mosques…).

    Reading mainstream (white) feminist blogs, it’s framed as a women’s rights issue- as the minarets are understood (by them) to be symbols of male domination. Then you add the problematic usage of images of women in burqas set against “imposing” minarets against the skyline….

    This is only semi-relevant. Thought you’d all like to know…

  10. Dom Browne wrote:

    I am an atheist. It requires nothing of me, in fact it frees up my Sunday morning. I imagine that theists feel they invest much of their identity in their belief. The word hijacked suggests that Islam has been turned off course, like it was taken over by pirates. To those who believe that Islam is an eternal message of guidance from an all powerful God this may appear to be rediculous. Islam, to them, is not a fad, or ship that be caught, captured, sold on or sunk. Islam is like the North star. But the writer admits that Islam and any religion can be ‘manipulated’ and ‘used’ by extremists, I would suggest in this context that the term ‘hijacked’ is meant to mean the same thing.

    On a side note you may have heard of the discrimination in Switzerland against Muslims. A referendum has just voted to prevent the building of minarets in the country. Sometimes democracy suffers from the tyranny of a prejudiced majority. I would say sometimes religion suffers from the tyranny of a prejudiced minority.

  11. Robert Monroe wrote:

    If someone “hijacked” Islam…who “hijacked” being white? And, when will every white person in the USA condemn and repudiate the actions of every white supremacist? They can start with the list in this article “Terror From The Right: Almost 60 Terrorist Plots Uncovered In The U.S.” http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=628.

  12. Sean wrote:

    AFAIC, General Casey’s comment about “hijacking” a religion is indeed trublesome. George W made a similar comment after 9-11, mentioning the hijacking of “a beautiful religion” by extremist factions.

    In other words: “The lunatic fringe is about to define you people, but we won’t let that happen.”

    Yeah, Mcvie is white privilege at work. I can only imagine say, Bill Clinton telling the likes of Pat Robertson in 1995 “Terrorists are threatening to lynch Christianity, but we won’t let that happen.”

    Could you imagine?

  13. Sean wrote:

    …but then again Robertson might actually appreciate that statement.

    sigh…

  14. Nissa wrote:

    When someone is Muslim, that is all they are to those who don’t understand (and fear) Islam. No motivation, explanation, understanding or appreciation of them can be done without reference to Islam, ‘Islamic culture’ and Islamic texts whether they gave these importance or not.
    In the West, many times our names and our colour means when a Muslim does something, their ‘Muslimness’ is apparent and people will draw the conclusion that Islam is a factor…
    Many times being Muslim is a factor, no doubt terrorists use Islam as a cause, as a reason, as a purpose…but so do nurses, doctors, teachers, mothers, fathers and the majority of us who are NOT violent and crazy!

    On the minaret thing: When the pogroms happened in Gujarat- mosques and shrines were specifically targetted for being phallic symbols of Islam raping Mother India, hence they had to be razed and Muslim women raped in return. Conflating an architectural design that exists because of practical reasons in the dayd before loudspeakers with sinister symbolism is dangerous and plain wrong.
    Ban the minarets, ban the hijab, ban the burkha, ban the Quran, ban Sharia adjudication courts….Ah, the liberal tolerant Europe I have come to know and love (!!!???)

  15. dogsofwar wrote:

    Sadly, this kind of thinking is all over the media. Once again, Thomas Friedman phones in another mini-essay written at a level I would be hard pressed to accept from a 17 year old, much less a published author.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/29/opinion/29friedman.html

    While not at all surprising, his latest is galling nonetheless. Part of his premise is that Muslims won’t speak out against terror, mainly because they’ve been brainwashed by some narrative into believing that the US is somehow against them. I don’t know where they’d get that idea–rampant Islamophobia in the US and Europe, plus well over a million killed in Iraq and Afghanistan? Nah.

    Digging through the rubble of buildings to salvage the severed limbs of family members and friends sure is some way to experience a narrative.

    Arguably, we’ve lost more freedom and ignited more hate in this country during the “War on Terror” than during the Cold War. Hopefully, it’s not to late to turn the tide on this, or the next 10 years is looking mighty grim.

  16. Hicham Maged wrote:

    I agree with you that ‘Islam’ has not been hijacked but what is really being hijacked is the people who knows nothing about except from media because of the stereotyping image about even before 9/11.

    Extreme actions done by Muslims is not related to Islam but for their ill interpretations to serve their ideologies. Now who focus on this in the media? Rarely you find so, on the contrary you find highlightings on stupid actions!

  17. dersk wrote:

    @Don – no, as a fellow atheist you have to work harder because you have to make rational decisions about morality. I guess the closest analog would be all the anti-atheists saying that Hitler and Stalin killed in the name of atheism.

    So, what would be a good way to describe the people who twist a belief system to promote hatred? I’m as much thinking of people who bomb abortion clinics or buy bumper stickers with obscure verses from Psalms that apparently hope for Obama’s death here. Or, I suppose, Indian political parties who promote Hinduism to gain political power.

    My daughter’s living about 30 km from Bern (location, I think, of one of the 4 extant minarets in the country). She’s 5 – I really don’t know what growing up in that country is going to do to her (one of her best friends – this week – is a Turkish girl in the neighborhood).

  18. insomniac wrote:

    The “hijacking” that has really occured here is of the media profile of Islam, which in mainstream media circles is represented as going hand in hand with a variety of “isms”: “fundamentalism”, “extremism”, “terrorism”, “islamism” etc.

    Religion forms an easy way of “othering” a person who commits a terrible crime. When a terrible crime is committed, people do ask themselves “why did this happen?”, “how could this happen?” “how is a human capable of that?”, “could we have done something?”. When that terrible act is a ‘terrorist’ act, the easiest, simplest answer is “that person is a crazy religious fundamentalist” or “they hate us because we are Christian”, rather than delving into complex religious, social, psychological and economic factors like “well, back in 1918, the European colonial powers drew straight lines across the whole Middle East and picked their portion” or “in the 1980s, NATO was looking for a buffer against the USSR in South Asia, and they funded a bloke called Bin Laden to do this for them” etc etc. No personal, social or national soul-searching needed, that person is “other”, they have a different moral code that allows them to do this. Done, simple.

    There is no need for a whole religion to be regarded as ultimately ‘responsible’ for the actions of a few. The problem is that these few are the nutjobs that will claim to speak for the whole religion, and will tell anyone who will listen that theirs is the ‘true’ and ‘literal’ interpretation, and their true interpretation justifies their violent acts. If that is the only exposure in a majority non-Muslim society to Islam, then people lacking an enquiring mind or alternative images are going to believe this.

    Living in the UK we have the recent example of violent terrorism in Northern Ireland. I do not remember one single instance of the IRA being presented in the media as “Catholic terrorists”, and violence was always referred to as “sectarian” rather than explicitly “religious”. Incidentally I am given to understand there was widespread support for their activities in certain parts of the US, that old chesnut that “one man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter” is certainly true there.

  19. James wrote:

    Insomniac,

    The difference with the IRA was that they themselves never presented their cause as being in the furtherance of their catholic faith.

    I don’t recall any act of IRA terrorism being justified by their apologists on religious grounds.

    Unfortunately, most of the recent attacks have been justified by their perpetrators in religious terms , which is why attention has been paid to their faith.

    There may be various complex reasons for why people end up committing acts of violence , but the influence of their particular view of their religion cannot be discounted either.

  20. Fiqah wrote:

    @insomniac: THANK you. I’m so glad someone brought up the IRA; it’s such an excellent (but often overlooked) parallel for these discussions.

    J-Heezy: Good job, and CONGRATULATIONS ON YOUR 2009 Brass Crescent Honorable Mention IN THE “BEST MUSLIM WRITER” CATEGORY!!! WHOOOO! ::: throws confetti ::: :D

  21. Minotaar wrote:

    I think there is a difference in tone between the “Catholic terrorism” in the UK and the radical islamic sort that occupies the news so much today. Motivations in the UK were also fed by nationalism and independence as well as differences in faith, while islamic terrorists stand only on their extreme religions interpretation, and cross borders, nationalities, and races to do so.

    I think that the close-in media coverage of the Ft. Hood shooting was fairly balanced. The base commander cautioned everyone to not jump to conclusions about the motivations of the shooter, and worried on national TV about the safety and fair treatment of other muslim service members. I think that the people closely involved in the situation have been reasonably fair. However, the claims made on fox news and elsewhere are based on the ideas of other people who have other media agendas. It is impossible to expect fair and balanced coverage of that. (E.g. Cheney trying to paint it as the first terrorist attack during the Obama presidency) For these reasons, I think it is pretty unreasonable to expect fair media criticism from all media outlets. I am grateful that at least the initial stuff, pre-talking heads, was good.

    The UK situation was not (to my understanding) closely associated with a major partisan divide in the US; there was no motivation for a fox news to be trying to spin the most recent attack as one thing or another, so the news simply came out more straight. This is not a problem of racist media coverage, but rather simply a difference from the current situation, which is perhaps indirectly created by Bush era anti-muslim racism.

    On the issue of Muslims feeling victimized by the media, I think there is a painful dearth of media savvyness going on in the muslim community. I sympathize with the muslim frustrations, but I am personally frustrated that Muslim leaders are not filling up the vacuum with a positive message. I think this is what americans are asking for, not “to fix the problem” in a literal sense. Why arent there Muslim leaders getting out there more, making big strong statements about this is not what we are, this is not what we believe, and if we find people like this in our flock we will turn them over to the authorities. Yes, there are people like this (CAIR, for example) but they are not filling the vacuum with a positive Islamic message. Where is the Muslim Rev. Al Sharpton? No one likes that he is sometimes called on to “Represent all black folks”, but Muslims need a bigger voice.

    The fact that this needs to be done at all, I agree, is a shame – it is a burden that Muslims currently bear in the West that they didnt ask for, and in a fairer world shouldnt have to bear. It’s the burden of being a minority, and having to define yourself. I cant fix that, and I am challenged by my own issues relating to my own minority status. I think if Muslims had a bigger, more motivated media presence (seriously, CAIR is not loud enough, nor associated with Islam enough) that the perception issues (And the weight that all Muslims clearly feel) would be less onerous.

  22. ms four wrote:

    I agree so much with this article, but I think something in the rhetoric has to change to get through to many Americans and other westerners. To use business terminology, anytime someone with a name that sounds Arab does anything bad, it’s terrible PR for all of Islam.

  23. luckyfatima wrote:

    Great piece Jehanzeb…I have nothing to add, you have typed out what so many Muslims, self included, are thinking about the whole tragic incident…yes and congrats on your Brass Crescent honorable mention.

  24. Medusa wrote:

    Robert Monroe,

    Really, really well-stated.

    This is difficult. I agree with everything in the piece, but as other people have pointed out, there are Muslim leaders and Muslim non-leaders who speak out against these acts every day, even though

    a) The majority of the 1 billion Muslims in the world don’t have shit to do with any of the violent acts that are committed by extremists

    b) The condemnation of these acts seem to be ignored by people like Saffyre.

    I had a co-worker who was talking about how much he distrusts Muslims they’re all terrorists, they took our jobs blah blah blah. It was idiotic. And his final statement was about how there were a bunch of Muslim kids in Canada (where he’s from) who would meet every day after school and then it came out that they were watching Al Jazeera.

    That was his proof that they were terrorists. They were watching Al-Jazeera.

    To which I said “Um, I watch Al-Jazeera.” (I am neither Muslim nor a terrorist, and sadly I think the fact that I’m non-religious letigimized Al-Jazeera for him, as though it was like “oh, okay! She watches AL-jazeera and she’s not Muslim so it must not be about terrorism.” WTFFFFFFFF?)

    It’s difficult to know what to do when there are soo many people out their with their stupid ideas that they aren’t even willing to challenge.

  25. luckyfatima wrote:

    @Medusa: Al Jazeera English is just the best news channel ever ever ever…it has great shows, especially documentaries. The whole blacklisting of that channel and association of Al Jazeera with ‘Islamic terrorism’ is just so ridiculous. And smearing that channel and banning it from North American airwaves (though I hear recently it will be aired in Canada) fits in well with some agenda to not allow Muslims to truly have a chance to be represented in any dynamic manner outside of the ‘terrorism’ or ‘oppressed women’ sort of boxes. The reputation and legitimacy of the Al Jazeera in North America has surely been hijacked.

  26. Jess wrote:

    There is some irony in that the places where the ban on minaret construction was supported most strongly were in the most strongly religious cantons, see here:

    http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/11/foreigners-in-switzerland.html

    and here:

    http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/11/intolerance-european-style.html

    Interestingly the areas of Switzerland in which foreigners are more common — such as Geneva, Zurich, Basle — were less likely to back the ban on minarets. Now, some 90% of the Muslim population in Switzerland is non-citizen, and in the country as a whole 22% of the population is foreign (non-citizen).

    This is a bit different from the US in which, even counting all the undocumented people, you wouldn’t get past single digits. (One reason for that is the sheer size of the US population).

    Anyhow, the two linked pieces touch on the idea that something like that would happen in the US. Generally speaking (and expanding a bit on their points) I would say no, because any ban on minarets wold immediately hit a First Amendment challenge. In Michigan they were running into that issue, and as I remember the construction of minarets was allowed.

    Aside from the First Amendment challenge, Nate Silver brings up the fact that Americans are generally less willing to mess with religious practice — which does NOT mean that there isn’t prejudice (just ask a Mormon or a Jew) — only that a Switzerland-style ban on minarets, the headscarf, or anything else like that is less likely.

    The reaction of some white feminists to a “phallic symbol” of Islam — that’s a prime example of the kind of academic feminism that drives me batty because it takes the position that facts on the ground — or reality — doesn’t matter.

    Back to the OP. Part of the problem, I think, is a similar one Jews and other religious minorities run into. If you look up some of the stuff from early in this century, there’s some remarkable similarities (people talking about Hebrew as though it were some secret code, for example, and decades later a guy with an Arabic t-shirt not getting let on a plane).

    I do think there is a legitimate discussion to be had about religious fundamentalism — and that applies to Christians too. It’s important to understand its origins, and how to engage with people in those communities so that it doesn’t get violent. Randall Terry didn’t appear out of thin air, nor did Tim McVeigh.

    And Juan Cole (www.juancole.com) said something interesting: Muslims are often perplexed by the way western governments engage religion because in places like Syria, Christians are allowed their own law and legal system in parallel with the state. The Western legal tradition is different and the only sort-of similar situation I can think of is in New York with the Orthodox Jews. So there’s already a recipe for misunderstanding there.

    But none of that that has much to do with the Fort Hood shooting — as far as I can see you had a guy with serious psychological problems who didn’t get help soon enough. That happens, and it’s awful.

    And the IRA point was really good- I come from Boston and the joke was that you would never, ever win an extradition hearing there. I swear, if the PATRIOT Act had been in force in the 70s half of my town would be in jail.

    One last thing: New York One is doing a series on being a Muslim in New York. It seems to be buying the “hijacked Islam” to an extent, though their next segment is on how media representations create more problems.

    If anyone else is in NYC and has Time Warner Cable I’d say tune in– but be aware the segments are like 2 minutes long, so you won’t get a lot of substance. The first one they did on a Pakistani family was, to my mind, okay (the fact that the guy they interviewed was speaking unaccented English, and made no apologies, was a plus, I thought). But I am not a Muslim so I don’t know how it looks from that end.

  27. Cindy wrote:

    I received one of those mass emails that get routed around which spreads a falsehood about the UK changing its core curriculum. It was sent to me by a “friend” with the lead in line of “I don’t care who this offends.” Without going into details of the particular email, I will say it basically ended with all Muslims are evil theme. (I couldn’t let this go and had to respond with this was not ok, this was racist and hate speak against Muslims and I care if I am offended. )

    Muslims around the world are under attack. Plain and simple. Their life in the states has gotten more difficult since 9/11. The recent vote in Switzerland that limited architectural elements typically associated with Mosques comes to mind. We have a lot of growing to do as a society in the US and abroad. I can only hope that our Hate Crimes legislation is put to good use during the prosecution of the crimes.

    Loved this ending in the post. Applicable to all marginalized groups. “oh yeah, we don’t expect non-Muslim White people to answer for crimes and murders committed by other non-Muslim White people!”

  28. grateful wrote:

    I also think we need to work hard to separate Muslims from Arabs. The word Muslim shouldn’t be synonymous with Arab. There are many Arab Christians who are essentially invisible. Africans and African culture is generally grouped into one big experience, and I think this applies to Muslims and Arab culture. In fact, Muslims are throughout the world and represent many racial groups. I think very little is known and understand about the 20 countries that represent the wide breadth of Arab culture. I am sure I have underrepresented or misrepresented my understanding of Arab culture even in this post. But we should acknowledge the misrepresentation of Arab people and those who practice Islam in media, and the lack of education about the diversity and widely influential aspect of Arab culture.

  29. mieko wrote:

    Minarets are a symbol of patriarchy? Perhaps. But what about Skyscrapers? Do they not have those in Switzerland? Faucets? Large sports cars? This argument holds no water. Phallic symbols of the patriarchy are everywhere you look.

  30. Jamerican Muslimah wrote:

    @Nissa, beautiful words:

    “When someone is Muslim, that is all they are to those who don’t understand (and fear) Islam. No motivation, explanation, understanding or appreciation of them can be done without reference to Islam, ‘Islamic culture’ and Islamic texts whether they gave these importance or not.
    In the West, many times our names and our colour means when a Muslim does something, their ‘Muslimness’ is apparent and people will draw the conclusion that Islam is a factor…
    Many times being Muslim is a factor, no doubt terrorists use Islam as a cause, as a reason, as a purpose…but so do nurses, doctors, teachers, mothers, fathers and the majority of us who are NOT violent and crazy!”

  31. JC wrote:

    I’m sure someone has already made this point, but it truly is white privilege at work that some wingnut puts up a racist billboard or threatens to assassinate the president practically every week and they’re all white and no one ever criticizes the “white mentality” or claims that “noble whiteness has been hijacked by johnny mcracist”

    I know that is not an exact analogy because I’m not talking about religion, so apologies in advance.

  32. Manju wrote:

    “I’m sure someone has already made this point, but it truly is white privilege at work that some wingnut puts up a racist billboard or threatens to assassinate the president practically every week and they’re all white and no one ever criticizes the “white mentality” or claims that “noble whiteness has been hijacked by johnny mcracist”

    This is inaccurate. The wording may differ, but when such incidents occur, their is no shortage of people pointing out that this is WHITE racism or WHITE privilege. We don’t just say racism or privilege without the qualifier white, because their race is critical to understanding their bigotry, which is not to say all people of their race are bigots.

    Islamicterrorists are treated roughly the same as white supremacists, and that’s fair.

  33. Manju wrote:

    “Yeah, Mcvie is white privilege at work. I can only imagine say, Bill Clinton telling the likes of Pat Robertson in 1995 “Terrorists are threatening to lynch Christianity, but we won’t let that happen.””

    This is ironically an example of stereotyping. McVeigh was agnostic so the fact that he was born into a christian culture is irrelevant to his terrorism. In contrast, it is not irrelevant that the unibomber is an environmentalist or that bin laden is a Muslim, because their extremism is directly related to their enviiromantlaism and religion, respectively.

    Bill Clinton did however famously blame right-wing talk radio for the violence. similarly, the larger culture that enables Islamic terrorism should also be held up to scrutiny.

  34. Sobia wrote:

    “the larger culture that enables Islamic terrorism should also be held up to scrutiny.”

    And what culture is this?

  35. Nissas wrote:

    @Manju

    There is not such thing as an ‘Islamic’ terrorist, just like there is no such thing as an Islamic dental nurse.

    Muslim terrorists are not treated the same way as white supremacists, right now these white supremacists have open marches and are being lauded as ‘freedom fighters’ in the UK. They get EU parliamentary seats for crying out loud! They can be found with materials to build bombs and make open threats about killing Muslims and starting a ‘race war’ and it barely makes the press….when Muslims are arrested on anti terror raids its on every front page, every news show, but its silent when they are released without charge (as most have been.)
    To ask what Sobia did- what culture?

  36. sandeep wrote:

    i’d just like to say this is a brilliant article. and it echoes alot of my own personal beliefs.

  37. Fatima wrote:

    I actually disagree with you on this statement:

    “No one has changed the Qur’anic text. No one has replaced the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, with another religious figure in our Islamic tradition. Islam, like any religion, can be manipulated and used by extremists for their own radical ideologies, but the actual message of the religion is not closed off to interpretation. It is open for interpretation, and it has been for centuries. ”

    I do think Islam has been ‘hijacked’ in the sense that, firstly, though interpretation is open to everyone, the prevailing interpretation tends to be conservative, and on top of that, the most visible (and extreme) interpretations are those that are particularly oppressive or violent. Most Muslims may be peaceful, many Muslims scholars may produce more liberal interpretations of the Qur’an and Islamic jurisprudence, but these are still not adequately visible to those outside the Muslim world (and even many times to those inside it when it comes to Islamic scholarship). It may be of course that acts of violence or extremism inherently have a louder voice, but the difficulty that Muslims have in presenting even just the varied, pluralistic reality of Islam to the outside world speaks volumes.

    I do think that Muslims can make more of an effort (I say this as a Muslim) to engage with other societies and cultures, and to educate people about the breadth and variation in Islamic belief and culture. Part of this, to me, is simply that Muslim communities try to themselves understand more about other communities, try to engage with them – some do this very well, but very many that I come across, as a Muslim, are insular, with an ‘us and them’ mindset.. I know that this in itself is caused by Islamophobia, but the first step has to come from one side and Muslims have more to lose. I think it’s essential for us to do this if we hope to be understood and understand others, and if extremism is to be combatted in any meaningful way. So in a sense I do think Islam has been ‘hijacked’ because the people who are the best at maintaining visibility are extremists or extremely conservative. The rest of the world has a lot of work to do in breaking down prejudice against Muslims and seeking to understand us, but the responsibility goes both ways.

    Of course lots of Muslims have spoken out against terrorism, but if people aren’t getting it, we have to work harder at it. And part of what we have to do, if we’re honest, is to deal with issues in our own ‘world’. This is so hard because there is no single ummah, really, but the Muslim world does have massive problems in terms of things like women’s rights, education, poverty, etc. We have to solve these problems internally. A lot is attributable to colonialism, yes, and Islam, as a religion primarily present in the developing world, suffers from all the same problems of the developing world magnified through religion, and so ‘the West’ has a lot to answer for – but honestly, the Muslim world possesses great wealth, great talent, and great intelligence. When Muslims claim that certainly things are justified because Islam demands it, and these things are outrageously, obviously unjust (again, look at women’s rights, look at extremist violence), it is up to other Muslims first and foremost to address these (and this includes becoming a better educated, more wordly, better equipped group of people at all levels within the ‘ummah’). I know many already do and would say that they’ve been doing this forever, but I think that we have to work harder on a basic, grassroots level, within Muslim communities globally.

  38. Anonymous wrote:

    Muslim terrorists are not treated the same way as white supremacists, right now these white supremacists have open marches and are being lauded as ‘freedom fighters’ in the UK. They get EU parliamentary seats for crying out loud! They can be found with materials to build bombs and make open threats about killing Muslims and starting a ‘race war’ and it barely makes the press….when Muslims are arrested on anti terror raids its on every front page, every news show, but its silent when they are released without charge (as most have been.)

    I’m sorry, but this is just ridiculous. The reality is that the far-right in the UK has been the subject of a persistant campaign of vilifacation, marginalisation and dehumansation in the media for decades.

    As for the press attention for uncovered terror-plots. Maybe 7/7 has something to do with that.

  39. nick wrote:

    Just have to step in and comment on the rise of parties like the BNP (British National Party) and EDL (English Defence League).

    These sad bastards regard themselves as defending the traditional (and correct) way of life in the UK but they are certainly not perceived that way by the public in general.

    The fact they have achieved some success in the political arena is shameful, but that’s democracy. There were enough votes to get them over the line and into a position of power.

    But to say that they are lauded or enjoy widespread support is a bridge too far.

    Yes, they hate anyone who is not like them, they hold rallies and wave placards, they broadcast disgusting slurs against POC on their websites.

    But they are also subject to surveillance by the authorities, physical attacks from people who disagree with them, and disdain by anyone with half an ounce of morality.

    They certainly do not have free reign in the UK.

  40. nick wrote:

    And another thing I really have to take issue with is the idea that the UK media is ignoring the policing issues faced by muslims and POC in Britain.

    There is constant reportage on the actions taken by police, and it’s not automatically in defence of the cops.

    Whether it be unnecessary stop & searches, racial profiling, institutional racism in the force, or brutality in the line of duty. The media covers it – not all of it, and often not very well – but they aren’t ignoring it.