The Consequences Of US Islamophobia

Boykinism: Joe McCarthy Would Understand

By Andrew Bacevich
Courtesy Of "The Huffington Post"

First came the hullaballoo over the “Mosque at Ground Zero.”  Then there was Pastor Terry Jones of Gainesville, Florida, grabbing headlines as hepromoted “International Burn-a-Koran Day.”  Most recently, we have an American posting a slanderous anti-Muslim video on the Internet with all theensuing turmoil.

Throughout, the official U.S. position has remained fixed: the United States government condemns Islamophobia.  Americans respect Islam as a religion of peace.  Incidents suggesting otherwise are the work of a tiny minority -- whackos, hatemongers, and publicity-seekers.  Among Muslims from Benghazi to Islamabad, the argument has proven to be a tough sell.

And not without reason: although it might be comforting to dismiss anti-Islamic outbursts in the U.S. as the work of a few fanatics, the picture is actually far more complicated.  Those complications in turn help explain why religion, once considered a foreign policy asset, has in recent years become a net liability.

Let’s begin with a brief history lesson.  From the late 1940s to the late 1980s, when Communism provided the overarching ideological rationale for American globalism, religion figured prominently as a theme of U.S. foreign policy.  Communist antipathy toward religion helped invest the Cold War foreign policy consensus with its remarkable durability.  That Communists were godless sufficed to place them beyond the pale.  For many Americans, the Cold War derived its moral clarity from the conviction that here was a contest pitting the God-fearing against the God-denying.  Since we were on God’s side, it appeared axiomatic that God should repay the compliment.

From time to time during the decades when anti-Communism provided so much of the animating spirit of U.S. policy, Judeo-Christian strategists in Washington (not necessarily believers themselves), drawing on the theologically correct proposition that Christians, Jews, and Muslims all worship the same God, sought to enlist Muslims, sometimes of fundamentalist persuasions, in the cause of opposing the godless.  One especially notable example was the Soviet-Afghan War of 1979-1989.  To inflict pain on the Soviet occupiers, the United States threw its weight behind the Afghan resistance, styled in Washington as “freedom fighters,” and funneled aid (via the Saudis and the Pakistanis) to the most religiously extreme among them.  When this effort resulted in a massive Soviet defeat, the United States celebrated its support for the Afghan Mujahedeen as evidence of strategic genius.  It was almost as if God had rendered a verdict.

Yet not so many years after the Soviets withdrew in defeat, the freedom fighters morphed into the fiercely anti-Western Taliban, providing sanctuary to al-Qaeda as it plotted -- successfully -- to attack the United States.  Clearly, this was a monkey wrench thrown into God’s plan.

With the launching of the Global War on Terrorism, Islamism succeeded Communism as the body of beliefs that, if left unchecked, threatened to sweep across the globe with dire consequences for freedom.  Those who Washington had armed as “freedom fighters” now became America’s most dangerous enemies.  So at least members of the national security establishment believed or purported to believe, thereby curtailing any further discussion of whether militarized globalism actually represented the best approach to promoting liberal values globally or even served U.S. interests.

Yet as a rallying cry, a war against Islamism presented difficulties right from the outset.  As much as policymakers struggled to prevent Islamism from merging in the popular mind with Islam itself, significant numbers of Americans -- whether genuinely fearful or mischief-minded -- saw this as a distinction without a difference.  Efforts by the Bush administration to work around this problem by framing the post-9/11 threat under the rubric of “terrorism” ultimately failed because that generic term offered no explanation for motive. However the administration twisted and turned, motive in this instance seemed bound up with matters of religion.

Where exactly to situate God in post-9/11 U.S. policy posed a genuine challenge for policymakers, not least of all for George W. Bush, who believed, no doubt sincerely, that God had chosen him to defend America in its time of maximum danger.  Unlike the communists, far from denying God’s existence, Islamists embrace God with startling ferocity.  Indeed, in their vitriolic denunciations of the United States and in perpetrating acts of anti-American violence, they audaciously present themselves as nothing less than God’s avenging agents.  In confronting the Great Satan, they claim to be doing God’s will.

Waging War in Jesus’s Name

This debate over who actually represents God’s will is one that the successive administrations of George W. Bush and Barack Obama have studiously sought to avoid.  The United States is not at war with Islam per se, U.S. officials insist.  Still, among Muslims abroad, Washington’s repeated denials notwithstanding, suspicion persists and not without reason.

Consider the case of Lieutenant General William G. (“Jerry”) Boykin.  While still on active duty in 2002, this highly decorated Army officer spoke in uniform at a series of some 30 church gatherings during which he offered his own response to President Bush’s famous question: “Why do they hate us?”  The general’s perspective differed markedly from his commander-in-chief’s:  “The answer to that is because we're a Christian nation.  We are hated because we are a nation of believers.”

On another such occasion, the general recalled his encounter with a Somali warlord who claimed to enjoy Allah’s protection.  The warlord was deluding himself, Boykin declared, and was sure to get his comeuppance: “I knew that my God was bigger than his.  I knew that my God was a real God and his was an idol.”  As a Christian nation, Boykin insisted, the United States would succeed in overcoming its adversaries only if “we come against them in the name of Jesus.”

When Boykin’s remarks caught the attention of the mainstream press, denunciations rained down from on high, as the White House, the State Department, and thePentagon hastened to disassociate the government from the general’s views.  Yet subsequent indicators suggest that, however crudely, Boykin was indeed expressing perspectives shared by more than a few of his fellow citizens.

One such indicator came immediately: despite the furor, the general kept his important Pentagon job as deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence, suggesting that the Bush administration considered his transgression minor.  Perhaps Boykin had spoken out of turn, but his was not a fireable offense.  (One can only speculate regarding the fate likely to befall a U.S. high-ranking officer daring to say of Israeli Prime Benjamin Netanyahu, “My God is a real God and his is an idol.”)

A second indicator came in the wake of Boykin’s retirement from active duty.  In 2012, the influential Family Research Council (FRC) in Washington hired the general to serve as the organization’s executive vice-president.  Devoted to “advancing faith, family, and freedom,” the council presents itself as emphatically Christian in its outlook.  FRC events routinely attract Republican Party heavyweights.  The organization forms part of the conservative mainstream, much as, say, the American Civil Liberties Union forms part of the left-liberal mainstream.

So for the FRC to hire as its chief operating officer someone espousing Boykin’s pronounced views regarding Islam qualifies as noteworthy.  At a minimum, those who recruited the former general apparently found nothing especially objectionable in his worldview.  They saw nothing politically risky about associating with Jerry Boykin.  He's their kind of guy. More likely, by hiring Boykin, the FRC intended to send a signal: on matters where their new COO claimed expertise -- above all, war -- thumb-in-your eye political incorrectness was becoming a virtue.  Imagine the NAACP electing Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan as its national president, thereby endorsing his views on race, and you get the idea.

What the FRC’s embrace of General Boykin makes clear is this: to dismiss manifestations of Islamophobia simply as the work of an insignificant American fringe is mistaken.  As with the supporters of Senator Joseph McCarthy, who during the early days of the Cold War saw communists under every State Department desk, those engaging in these actions are daring to express openly attitudes that others in far greater numbers also quietly nurture.  To put it another way, what Americans in the 1950s knew as McCarthyism has reappeared in the form of Boykinism.

Historians differ passionately over whether McCarthyism represented a perversion of anti-Communism or its truest expression.  So, too, present-day observers will disagree as to whether Boykinism represents a merely fervent or utterly demented response to the Islamist threat.  Yet this much is inarguable: just as the junior senator from Wisconsin in his heyday embodied a non-trivial strain of American politics, so, too, does the former special-ops-warrior-turned-“ordained minister with a passion for spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ.”

Notably, as Boykinism’s leading exponent, the former general’s views bear a striking resemblance to those favored by the late senator.  Like McCarthy, Boykin believes that, while enemies beyond America’s gates pose great dangers, the enemy within poses a still greater threat.  “I’ve studied Marxist insurgency,” he declared in a 2010 video.  “It was part of my training.  And the things I know that have been done in every Marxist insurgency are being done in America today.”  Explicitly comparing the United States as governed by Barack Obama to Stalin’s Soviet Union, Mao Zedong’s China, and Fidel Castro’s Cuba, Boykin charges that, under the guise of health reform, the Obama administration is secretly organizing a “constabulary force that will control the population in America.”  This new force is, he claims, designed to be larger than the United States military, and will function just as Hitler’s Brownshirts once did in Germany. All of this is unfolding before our innocent and unsuspecting eyes.

Boykinism: The New McCarthyism

How many Americans endorsed McCarthy’s conspiratorial view of national and world politics?  It’s difficult to know for sure, but enough in Wisconsin to win him reelection in 1952, by a comfortable 54% to 46% majority.  Enough to strike fear into the hearts of politicians who quaked at the thought of McCarthy fingering them for being “soft on Communism.”

How many Americans endorse Boykin’s comparably incendiary views?  Again, it’s difficult to tell.  Enough to persuade FRC’s funders and supporters to hire him, confident that doing so would burnish, not tarnish, the organization’s brand.  Certainly, Boykin has in no way damaged its ability to attract powerhouses of the domestic right.  FRC’s recent “Values Voter Summit”  featured luminaries such as Republican vice-presidential nominee Paul Ryan, former Republican Senator and presidential candidate Rick Santorum, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, and Representative Michele Bachmann -- along with Jerry Boykin himself, who lectured attendees on “Israel, Iran, and the Future of Western Civilization.” (In early August, Mitt Romney met privately with a group of “prominent social conservatives,” including Boykin.)

Does their appearance at the FRC podium signify that Ryan, Santorum, Cantor, and Bachmann all subscribe to Boykinism’s essential tenets?  Not any more than those who exploited the McCarthyite moment to their own political advantage  -- Richard Nixon, for example -- necessarily agreed with all of McCarthy’s reckless accusations.  Yet the presence of leading Republicans on an FRC program featuring Boykin certainly suggests that they find nothing especially objectionable or politically damaging to them in his worldview.

Still, comparisons between McCarthyism and Boykinism only go so far.  Senator McCarthy wreaked havoc mostly on the home front, instigating witch-hunts, destroying careers, and trampling on civil rights, while imparting to American politics even more of a circus atmosphere than usual.  In terms of foreign policy, the effect of McCarthyism, if anything, was to reinforce an already existing anti-communist consensus.  McCarthy’s antics didn’t create enemies abroad.  McCarthyism merely reaffirmed that communists were indeed the enemy, while making the political price of thinking otherwise too high to contemplate.

Boykinism, in contrast, makes its impact felt abroad.  Unlike McCarthyism, it doesn’t strike fear into the hearts of incumbents on the campaign trail here.  Attracting General Boykin’s endorsement or provoking his ire probably won’t determine the outcome of any election.  Yet in its various manifestations Boykinism provides the kindling that helps sustain anti-American sentiment in the Islamic world.  It reinforces the belief among Muslims that the Global War on Terror really is a war against them.

Boykinism confirms what many Muslims are already primed to believe: that American values and Islamic values are irreconcilable.  American presidents and secretaries of state stick to their talking points, praising Islam as a great religious tradition and touting past U.S. military actions (ostensibly) undertaken on behalf of Muslims.  Yet with their credibility among Iraqis, Afghans, Pakistanis, and others in the Greater Middle East about nil, they are pissing in the wind.

As long as substantial numbers of vocal Americans do not buy the ideological argument constructed to justify U.S. intervention in the Islamic world -- that their conception of freedom (including religious freedom) is ultimately compatible with ours -- then neither will Muslims.  In that sense, the supporters of Boykinism who reject that proposition encourage Muslims to follow suit.  This ensures, by extension, that further reliance on armed force as the preferred instrument of U. S. policy in the Islamic world will compound the errors that produced and have defined the post-9/11 era. 

Freedom Of Speech: An Islamic Perspective

Umm Ibtihal conveys the following:

It is therefore hardly surprising that the recent film attacking the honor of the Prophet (saw) has drawn escalating outrage from Muslims all over the world. To add fuel to the fire, a French magazine has now published some extremely derogatory caricatures of the Prophet (saw). Those defending such actions claim they are upholding freedom of speech; and freedom of speech can never be curbed regardless of the consequences.

The grossly hypocritical nature of this elusive concept is however quite apparent for all to see. Europe, for instance, imposes legal and social limits on freedom of expression; publication of anti-Semitic cartoons would almost everywhere be liable to legal prosecution. In some of the European countries it is against the law to say that Hitler did not murder millions of Jews. But, it appears that it is quite acceptable to ridicule Islam and the Messenger of Allah (saw). 

The reality is that there can never be complete freedom of speech. Laws will always be required that would limit freedom of speech in order to preserve society at large. A clear example of this is the preservation of national security. The Official Secrets Act exists in the United Kingdom for the protection of official information, mainly related to national security. People working with secret information are commonly required to sign a statement to the effect that they agree to abide by the restrictions of the Official Secrets Act. In the US, the clash between the conflicting aims of national security and freedom of expression came to a head in 1971 in the 'Pentagon Papers' case. 'The New York Times' had ignored the government's demand to halt publication of a document dealing with the US military involvement in Vietnam. As a result, it was enjoined from continuing to publish portions of the document. Although the Court's decision went in the favor of freedom of speech and the press, it did implicitly acknowledge a national security exception to the First Amendment's ban on prior restraint. In subsequent years, the Court has upheld the government's national security claims in several cases that involved former CIA agents who had written memoirs.

Even the philosophers of liberalism had to admit that there exist inherent discrepancies within the concept of freedom and its application at state level. One strand of liberal thought argues that freedom of speech should not be limited because once this happens, the society would inevitably move towards tyranny and censorship. The other line of argument states with equal force that a government's involvement with the action of individuals should never be removed because this would eventually lead to anarchy and a life that Hobbes described in Leviathan as "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short". Moreover, some feel that the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent 'harm' to others. But there has always been a problem in defining 'harm'. Does prostitution, for instance, fall under this domain? Most liberals would also include 'offense' as a major factor that should legitimize the exercise of power over the actions of the individuals living in a society. Again the issue arises as to which actions are to be considered 'offensive'. Should pornography, for example, come under this category? Some have argued that pornography is not only offensive but is also harmful. Such contradictions lead to a never ending debate as to what does/ does not constitute 'harm' or 'offense'. Thus what we find is that the slogan of freedom of speech is one of the most used slogans in the world, and yet no one is quite sure what it entails or where the boundaries (should) lie.

But for the Muslims, the issue should be quite clear: Islam does not allow the adoption and propagation of 'Freedom of Speech' as propagated by the west since this would include the promotion of such ideas that clearly contradict Islam, such as usury, obscenity under the guise of entertainment and separation of Islam from life's affairs.

This is not to say that Islam does not allow the Muslims to express their opinions freely. It is allowed for a Muslim to express his opinion about anything or any issue, but this opinion must be derived from Quran and Sunnah of Prophet Muhammad (saw). Numerous examples can be cited from the Islamic history where freedom to express one's opinion not only existed but was also encouraged. The companions of the Prophets (saw) openly disagreed with each other on various aspects of Islamic rules. The Khaleefah Harun al-Rashid provided financial incentives for anyone who would teach, learn, propagate or debate issues of the deen. Islam has given the Muslims the right to express their opinions, even if they contradict the opinions of the ruler or that of the majority of the Muslims. It has made it obligatory upon the Muslims to express their opinions and criticize the ruler if he abuses his authority by ordering something that displeases Allah (swt). The Messenger of Allah said, "The master of martyrs is Hamzah bin Abdul Muttalib and a man who stood up to an oppressive ruler, ordered him (to do good) and forbade him (from doing evil) and was killed by him." 

Looking at the glorious history of Islam, we find that the Muslims excelled in every sphere of life: science flourished under the Islamic rule. The Muslims were the most advanced in the world in various fields such as mathematics, geometry, medicine, natural sciences, etc. In terms of economics, they were the most prosperous ; Khaleefah Umar bin Abdul Aziz at one stage of his rule could not find a single poor person to give zakat to during his rule in 7th Century C.E. The Muslims also excelled in agriculture; in the 8th and 9th century, Iraq under Islam had a population of 30 million, 80% of whom were farmers with modern irrigation systems from the rivers Tigris and Euphrates. The ration of yield of seed for wheat in the Muslim world was 10:1 compared to 2.5:1 in Europe. With regard to showing tolerance towards the Non-Muslims, Prophet Muhammad (saw) had said "Whoever hurts a Non-Muslim citizen of an Islamic state hurts me, and he who hurts me annoys Allah (swt)." (Bukh‰ri). With this kind of mentality towards Non-Muslims, it is hardly surprising that the Christians of Ash-sham fought alongside the Muslims against the Christian Crusaders who had attacked the Islamic State.

The question that needs to be asked is, 'What was it in the Muslim world that had fostered such tolerance, authenticity, creativity, and human flourishing?' It certainly was not the current notion of freedom that is prevailing in today's world but rather it was the result of the implementation of Islam on society. Unlike man-made systems, Islam is in total harmony with the reality of human nature since it is revealed by the One (swt) who created human beings. Therefore, the aims of Islam conform to the reality of human society. Islam has designated certain aims for society which include protection of mind, belief, private property, security and state. Only when such aims exist in a society can human beings progress in every sphere of life. To safeguard these aims, an Islamic society will restrict freedom of expression as espoused by the west since it acknowledges the fact that society is not just made up of individuals and what an individual does will have an impact on society at large. Islam makes no apology for doing this. In actual fact, liberal societies, despite their claims of being free and tolerant, are also forced to take certain steps to safeguard society. Hence they have laws restricting the 'amount of freedom' that can exist in society. In addition to this, their laws continually twist and change to suit their interests and are often interpreted in a manner that clearly reflects their prejudice and enmity towards Islam as shown in this recent example. The concept of freedom of speech is therefore laden with ambiguity.

A society, by its very nature, demands the existence of certain rules and regulations as to what is and what is not acceptable in speech as well as in other spheres of life. But the fundamental question is where these limitations should be set. We either base our society on philosophical principles that tend to rotate in a vicious circle, or alternatively, as those who believe in Allah (swt)'s supremacy, we turn to the Guidance sent by Him (swt). For us the choice has already been made: We have set you on a plain way of commandment so follow it, and not the desires of those who have no knowledge (Quran 45:18). 

Basing our opinions on this premise, we Muslims throughout the world, need to discuss and debate on the issue of what is the way forward for us.

Via: "IslamiCity"

Opposing Islamophobia Is Not A Defense Of Extremism

Standing Up Against Knee-Jerk Discrimination and Xenophobia

By CHRISTIAN CHRISTENSEN
Courtesy Of "CounterPunch"

#1: Islamophobia is an irrational fear of Islam, but radical Islam is, for example, anti-feminism and anti-gay. So, to fear the spread is not irrational, and, thus, not Islamophobic.

I’ve heard this one a lot. The problem is that this statement takes as a point of departure that Islamophobia is all about an opposition to radical, fundamentalist Islam.  It isn’t. If fear of radical Islam were the same as “Islamophobia” then a lot of secular Muslims in Turkey could (ironically) be classified as Islamophobic. They are not, however, because Islamophobia is an irrational fear of Islam and Muslims in general, not just extremists, and rooted in crude stereotypes by which all Muslims are lumped together as some kind of uniform mass. There are plenty of anti-feminist, anti-gay elements within Christianity, for example, but those elements are rarely portrayed as representative of Christians as a whole. The problem is that it is the radical fundamentalist image of the Muslim which is usually used as the “default” image for all Muslims. This is what I have called the “hegemony of Islam” perspective whereby, in terms of identity, being a Muslim is seen as trumping all other factors: be they economics, education, gender, family history, and so on. In other words, in this stereotypical view, if you are a Muslim, your identity is subservient to your religious identification, with all other influencing factors a distant second. This faulty logic is applied to all Muslims, whether fundamentalist or not. That’s Islamophobia.

#2: Criticizing the very making of “Innocence of Muslims” and/or the Muhammad cartoons has a chilling effect on free speech, and is a form of soft censorship.

According to this line of thinking, “Innocence of Muslims” and the Muhammad cartoons are protected by free speech, but to criticize their making and/or content is somehow borderline censorship. No. To critique the manner in which free speech is exercised is in no way the same thing as saying that the right should be revoked or the speech banned. To use another example: I am opposed to the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. I am also opposed to any bans on protesting against these occupations. If, however, anti-war protesters decided to stage a protest at the funeral of a soldier killed in the war, and did so with placards saying that the solder deserved to die, then I would question both the mode and content of their free speech. That does not mean I would want to ban either their right to gather or their right to speech. It just means that I am exercising my right to free speech to question how others have exercised that same right. That’s how, not if. The interplay is actually the crystallization of free speech in action. The same goes for the anti-Islam film and cartoons. If you want to make an inflammatory film/carton during a time of crisis: fine. But don’t then be surprised if others exercise their rights in response.

#3: Muslim fundamentalists do not respect the values of free speech: look at what happened to Theo Van Gogh and Salman Rushdie. Why should we worry about their being offended?

This goes back to the point I made earlier: no-one who opposes Islamophobia is worried about the feelings of small numbers of unrepresentative, violent extremists. To bring up Theo Van Gogh or Salman Rushdie is to suggest that most Muslims were/are somehow in favor of Van Gogh’s murder, or the fatwah against Rushdie. If anyone has any solid evidence to support those extremely broad suggestions, I have yet to see it. It is also a very convenient strategy: to bring up Van Gogh when discussing Islamophobia as it is so emotive. Is the suggestion that the vast majority Muslims are simply unable of being offended without an accompanying desire to kill the person(s) who offended them? Yes, his murder was a terrible crime, but who has ever said that murder is an acceptable by-product of opposing Islamophobic words and pictures? Few, if any.

#4: Free speech is part of democratic society, and so these riots proved that many predominantly Muslim countries are not ready for democracy.

This would be a great argument were not so utterly de-contextualized. The basis of this line of reasoning is that free speech is a beloved component of European and North American socio-political reality. People in these regions can speak their minds without fear of reprisal, unlike countries in, for example, the “Middle East” where religious dissent is met with violence or death.  Let’s not be naïve here: many regimes in predominantly Muslim nations are incredibly violent and repressive, and their commitment to freedom of speech (as well as freedom of assembly and fundamental human rights) is close to zero. But if you think that this type of repression is relegated to the “Muslim world” then I would suggest brushing up on post-war South American dictatorships (start with Chile); or the recent history of the Balkans.  And, closer to home (for me, at least), it would be worth having a chat about actual tolerance for freedom of speech in the United States with Americans who dared to utter some uncomfortable truths about US geo-politics on September 12, 2001. Saudi Arabia is often held up as the poster-child for free speech repression in the name of Islam.  Is that the same Sharia-loving, free-speech hating Saudi Arabia, staunch US and UK ally, who in 2010 purchased $60 billion in US arms and whose leader was warmly welcomed by the Queen at Buckingham palace in 2007? The one and same.

#5: Why should progressives spend time defending a religious group when there are far more pressing issues (such as poverty, gender inequality, etc.)? 

I don’t think of opposing Islamophobia as defending Islam any more that I consider opposing anti-Semitism as some kind of de facto support for Judaism.  Opposing Islamophobia is about opposing knee-jerk discrimination and xenophobia, dressed up as concern for “rights” (rights I rarely see addressed in other contexts) using vulgar stereotypes and crude generalizations. Finally, it is worth considering more precisely the role that poverty and inequality have played in the current unrest. While films, cartoons and religious fervor are held up as the main causes of the riots, I would suspect that a number of other factors have played into these events. If, however, we ignore these other factors in favor of the simple answer — “Muslim Rage” — then we contribute to an environment in which Islamophiobia, and thus discrimination, will thrive.

Christian Christensen is Professor of Media & Communication Studies at the Department of Informatics and Media, Uppsala 

Confronting The Roots Of Muslim Rage

Barack Obama, the US president, has urged world leaders to speak out forcefully against violence and extremism, and to speak honestly about the causes of anti-US sentiment in the Muslim world.

"This is not a freedom crusade to defeat the terrorists in US national security interests. It's a little bit more: We are trying to be neutral in our tone we're going to offer support we're demanding that you lead a little bit more. Whether it will be effective is the big question but I actually think a big part of it is it's not about us ... the region faces these problems and that's been a core message that President Obama has been trying to say. We're here, we're going to partner but we're not going to actually try to dictate." - Brian Katulis, a senior fellow from the Center for American Progress

His address at the annual United Nations General Assembly came after weeks of deadly protests in dozens of Muslim countries.

The president condemned the US-made anti-Islam video which he says triggered the protests.

But he also strongly criticised the ensuing violence which killed dozens of people, including the US ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens.

Obama said: "If we are serious about upholding these ideals, it will not be enough to put more guards in front of an embassy; or to put out statements of regret, and wait for the outrage to pass. If we are serious about those ideals, we must speak honestly about the deeper causes of this crisis. Because we face a choice between the forces that would drive us apart, and the hopes we hold in common. Today, we must affirm that our future will be determined by people like Chris Stevens, and not by his killers. Today, we must declare that this violence and intolerance has no place among our United Nations."

But the protests are not the only problem the US faces in the region.

Iran's nuclear programme, Syria's civil war and the changing political landscape after the so-called Arab Spring also featured in an address that will have been watched closely by his Republican presidential challenger, Mitt Romney.

"There is an unanswered question that the White House simply has not been willing to focus on ... What is it that causes the situation across the Arab world and beyond, the Islamic countries of the world, where you have overwhelming feelings, sentiments that the US has become an anti-Islamic force?

It's surprising to me that Obama did in fact make a speech when he was running for office in 2008, indicating that he felt some urgency, or some need to address this problem of where and which US policies impacted on Islamic sentiments around the world in terms of their fear and their anger towards the US. But once he got to the White House, I'm afraid that he lost that concern and now he focuses on simply the short-term immediate problem of getting leaders to be more pro-American and more responsible in terms of their attitude towards extremism and not focusing on the underlying problem that is still unresolved."

Gareth Porter, a historian and investigative reporter

Islamophobia Masquerading As Free Speech

Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu addresses the 67th United Nations General Assembly at the U.N. Headquarters in New York, September 28, 2012.
Credit: Reuters/Brendan McDermid


Muslim World Questions Western Freedom Of Speech

Muslim leaders were in unison at the United Nations arguing that the West was hiding behind its defense of freedom of speech and ignoring cultural sensitivities in the aftermath of anti-Islam slurs that have raised fears of a widening East-West cultural divide.

A video made in California depicting the Prophet Mohammad as a fool sparked the storming of U.S. and other Western embassies in many Islamic countries and a deadly suicide bombing in Afghanistan this month. The crisis deepened when a French magazine published caricatures of the Prophet.

Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said it was time to put an end to the protection of Islamophobia masquerading as the freedom to speak freely.

"Unfortunately, Islamophobia has also become a new form of racism like anti-Semitism. It can no longer be tolerated under the guise of freedom of expression. Freedom does not mean anarchy," he told the 193-nation U.N. General Assembly on Friday.

Egypt's newly elected Islamist president, Mohamed Mursi, voiced similar sentiments in his speech on Wednesday.

"Egypt respects freedom of expression, freedom of expression that is not used to incite hatred against anyone," he said. "We expect from others, as they expect from us, that they respect our cultural specifics and religious references, and not impose concepts or cultures that are unacceptable to us."

Most Western speakers at the United Nation defended freedom of speech, but shied away from calls by Muslim leaders for an international ban on blasphemy.

"The international community must not become silent observers and should criminalize such acts that destroy the peace of the world and endanger world security by misusing freedom of expression," President Asif Ali Zardari of Pakistan said.

"This incident demonstrates the serious consequences of abusing the principle of freedom of expression on one side and the freedom of demonstration on the other side," OIC Secretary-General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu told reporters.

The 47-member U.N. Human Rights Council, dominated by developing states, has passed non-binding resolutions against defamation of religion for over a decade. Similar ones were endorsed in the U.N. General Assembly.

European countries, the United States and several Latin American nations in the council opposed the resolutions, arguing that while individual people have human rights, religions do not, and that existing U.N. pacts - if enforced - were sufficient to curb incitement to hatred and violence.

Via: "Reuters"

Freedom Of Speech: Insults, Incitement and Islam

Graham Peebles argues that to reduce the issue of the anti-Islam film “Innocence of Muslims” to notions of freedom of speech versus censorship “is a convenient distraction fabricated in order to avoid discussing the filmmakers’ intention and the underlying causes of hurt and anger among Muslims which arise largely out of American foreign policy”.

Across the Muslim World there is outrage and hurt at the latest calculated attack on Islam, in the form of the film trailer “Innocence of Muslims. All who hold human rights and moral decency close to their heart share their indignation.

Freedom of speech is a basic human right, protected under Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which states:

1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference, and
2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression.

Rights enshrined in law that are nevertheless denied to many, rights supposedly honoured in democratic countries.

Expressions of free speech that are little more than propaganda, that consciously incite hatred and spark acts of violence are rightly restricted under the very law that protects our freedom of expression. Article 20, paragraph 2 of the same covenant states that any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.

“Innocence Of Muslims”

The amateurish film with no real narrative portrays the Prophet Muhammad as a violent and lascivious fool. It is cheaply made, poorly acted and directed, and as a piece of filmmaking it is to be dismissed out of hand, but as The Guardian put it, “the really sinister thing is that all this ham-fistedness and crassness is in an important sense deliberate. It has to look like propaganda for the provocation to be effective.” The actors claim they did not know what the film was about or its purpose, and some speak of suing the producers. The BBC reports: “One actress featured in the film said she had no idea it would be used for anti-Islamic propaganda and condemned it.” Offensive dialogue that insults Islam and the Prophet Muhammad has been crudely added after filming.

The trailer was written and produced in the USA by Nakoula Basseley, an Egyptian Coptic Christian living in California, who drafted much of the script while serving a prison sentence for fraud. According to the Gawker website, it was directed “by a 65-year-old schlock director named Alan Roberts. He’s the creative vision behind soft-core porn classics like The Happy Hooker Goes Hollywood.” Whether a full film version exists is speculation; the trailer however has done its toxic, destructive work.

Basseley says his wife’s family paid for the film, but it is still unclear how it was funded or what the cost was. Whatever the amount, it is hard to justify any expense at all on a film rooted in such prejudice and hatred, which serves no purpose other than to hurt and insult Muslims throughout the world, reinforce negative stereotypes, incite violence and fuel division. The film is, as the Guardian states, “a bigoted piece of poison calculated to inflame the Muslim world … it might be risible were it not for the ugly Islamophobia which it promotes and whose effects are now being seen around the world.”

Intended Fury

The film has unsurprisingly prompted widespread protests throughout the world. On 11 September in Cairo protesters scaled the walls of the American embassy, pulled down the US flag and called for the expulsion of the US ambassador to Cairo. In Libya, the US ambassador, Christopher Stevens, and three other American staff members were killed in the American embassy in what appears to have been an unrelated, pre-planned military-style attack.

Other protests directly triggered by the offensive, degrading film, and sadly resulting in many deaths, have since taken place in a number of countries with large Muslim populations, including Sudan, Tunisia, Lebanon, Yemen, Pakistan, the Philippines, Indonesia, Qatar, Afghanistan, Britain, Nigeria and Kashmir.

Free Speech Or Incitement?

The film and the reaction to it has prompted much to be written and spoken about unrestricted free speech and the dangers of censorship. Writing in The Observer, Nick Cohen argues that “Nothing, however vile, justifies censorship. Even in the hardest of cases such as this anti-Islamic film, the old arguments against censorship remain the best.” The observation of basic human rights is the foundation for any democratic society and free speech is a fundamental requirement. Where it is absent, totalitarian control of one kind of another becomes possible, perhaps inevitable.

Freedom of expression is indeed a fundamental human right, but it does not stand alone, or above other related rights, such as human dignity and mutual respect. All need to coexist and indeed all are indivisible.

There are though many methods of control and restriction of freedoms, both crude and subtle. Is for example the manufacturing of consent, a form of sociological coercion commonplace in America and elsewhere compatible with freedom and/or democratic principles of independent thinking and participation. As Noam Chomsky says, “the anti-democratic thrust of opinion in what are called democratic societies is really ferocious, and for good reason. Because the freer the society gets, the more dangerous the great beast becomes and the more you have to be careful to cage it somehow.” The “great beast” is, of course, us – the 99 per cent.

The making and distribution of this film is not an expression of freedom of any kind; it contributes nothing of value to the political environment or social discourse and has no artistic merit. The Anna Lindh Foundation reinforced this view in a statement in which it described the film as “an inflammatory pamphlet, the distribution of which – on the anniversary of the terrorist attacks of 11 September – cannot be abridged to a manifestation of freedom of expression”.

International law, acting as a guide and aid to clarity of thinking, states there are limits to free speech. Where such expression is clearly based on racial or religious hatred and incites violence, then it is illegal and the perpetrators should be subject to prosecution. For where the law is infringed consequences follow – something Israel should be made aware of. What is crucial is the motive. If something is spoken, written, painted, drawn, filmed ,etc. with the premeditated intention of causing offence, because it is rooted in hatred of one kind or another, it is outside the law.

Freedom of expression is indeed a fundamental human right, but it does not stand alone, or above other related rights, such as human dignity and mutual respect. All need to coexist and indeed all are indivisible.

Unless the filmmakers of “Innocence of Muslims” are completely naïve or plain stupid, they would have known that producing a film in which the Prophet Muhammad is portrayed as a violent, promiscuous simpleton would inevitably cause offence and would probably result in violent demonstrations. Therefore, the film breaches international guidelines on free speech, and should be banned, its makers charged and prosecuted. Al-Jazeera quotes the filmmaker Danny Schechter, whose view on the film is clear: “It is very political from beginning to end. It’s not about free expression; it’s about propaganda. The film is incitement – it’s not information, it’s not filmmaking and it’s really intended as a technique of war-making.”

What good can possibly come from continuing to allow such a distasteful film to be circulated? It serves no purpose other than to provoke further potential violence. It enables Muslims to be marginalized and demonized again and constructs a perverse justification for continued American and Israeli intimidation, aggression and the spreading of paranoia. Allowing this film to be shown or not has little to do with censorship and/or free speech, and to reduce this issue to such notions is a convenient distraction fabricated in order to avoid discussing the filmmakers’ intention and the underlying causes of hurt and anger among Muslims which arise largely out of American foreign policy.

Simmering Resentment “The Safeguard Of Justice”

Opinion among large numbers of Muslims throughout the world towards America is overwhelmingly negative. The Pew Research Centre found in a recent survey that there remains “a widespread perception that the US acts unilaterally and does not consider the interests of other countries. In predominantly Muslim nations, American anti-terrorism efforts are still widely unpopular.” In fact, according to the Pew Centre report only 15 per cent of Muslims have confidence in President Barack Obama, approve of his foreign policies and hold favourable views of America in general. The Pew Centre states: “In a number of strategically important Muslim nations, America’s image has not improved during the Obama presidency.” In fact, it has deteriorated, as US policies throughout the region continue to cause consternation among large numbers of Muslims (and of course more widely).

American support for Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestine, which violates a host of international and indeed national laws and contravenes numerous UN resolutions, is perhaps top of the list. It is followed by the Iraq war, US involvement in Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and Yemen, long running proxy wars in Somalia, and US support for “friendly dictators”. Add to this confinement without trial, abuse and torture in Guantanamo and Bagram prisons, the burning of the Quran by US soldiers in Afghanistan and by Florida “pastor” Terry Jones, and disrespecting the dead bodies of Afghans. The list is indeed long and damning, and so it goes on.

The recent demonstrations were simply sparked by the film “Innocence of Muslims”, but the the film was not the root cause of the protests. As Shashank Joshi, Research Fellow at the Royal United Services Institute, states, “we are witnessing profound anti-Americanism, dormant for much of last year, fused with religious extremism – with the controversial ‘Innocence of Muslims’ film merely a trigger”. Of course, extremists were involved and never miss an opportunity, their violent actions distorting the events, feeding prejudice and creating a convenient diversion from the issues.

US Ideals Of Peace Justifying Conflict

All violence is to be condemned and the attacks that caused deaths and injuries resulting from these protests are no exception – they should not be allowed to take centre stage, and it must be stated that the vast majority of actions undertaken have been peaceful and without incident. The Anna Lindh Foundation says in relation to the protests that “the vast majority of Muslim public opinion has expressed its anger to [sic] the release of the film peacefully and individually, and the Arab governments of the region have reiterated their commitment with [sic] cultural inclusiveness while condemning the attacks to [sic] diplomatic delegations.”

For peace to envelop our world … there must be tolerance, cooperation and understanding of others, not ideological imposition – of any kind. The equitable sharing of natural resources, of knowledge, ideas and experience will create justice.

 To speak with solemnity and shock, calling for justice against the perpetrators of violence as US officials have, is expected and indeed right, albeit hypocritical. In order to create peace, it is necessary to remove the causes of conflict, in this case those causes are complex and not confined to one poorly-made and deeply offensive film. It is offensive, let us add, not just to Muslims, who are understandably enraged, but to all right-minded men and women respectful and tolerant of others’ beliefs and cultures.

American foreign policy is seen by many to be that which seeks to extend the influence and maximize the power of America, safeguard its interests at the expense of others and the natural environment, and support criminality – Israel comes to mind. Such distasteful American foreign policies go back decades. As Noam Chomskystates: “Even in the 1950s, President Eisenhower was concerned about what he called a campaign of hatred of the US in the Arab world, because of the perception on the Arab street that it supported harsh and oppressive regimes to take their oil.” A perception that has proved to be correct.

Ideologically driven, Washington’s attitude is that when all follow America’s lead on matters relating to economics, politics, religion and social affairs, peace will inevitably follow, and not until. With this doctrine in mind, America has sought to dominate the world, repeatedly making war in the name of peace.

Peace, though, is beyond ideology. For peace to envelop our world as men ad women everywhere hope, there must be tolerance, cooperation and understanding of others, not ideological imposition – of any kind. The equitable sharing of natural resources, of knowledge, ideas and experience will create justice.

Dissipating mistrust and resentment will lead to peace and a natural movement towards unity that encourages the greatest possible diversity, enriching the lives of us all.

Via: "Redress Online"

Islamophobia: The West’s Crusade Against Muslims

Kourosh Ziabari writes in "Global Research",

Despite constituting a significant minority in western countries, Muslims around the world are subject to disproportionate, unjustifiable bias. Such attitudes distance them from their most fundamental social rights by portraying them as extremists and fanatics. The group is represented as able to endanger the interests of Europe and America.

As reported by the German Central Institute Islam Archive, there are 53 million Muslims living in Europe (excluding Turkey) who represent some 7.2% of the continent’s population. According to a Pew Research Center 2011 demographic study, globally Islam has 1.6 billion adherents, making up 23% of the world’s population.

Muslims coexist with other groups in peace and tranquility. Nobody can claim that Muslims have been dangerous or harmful to the security of the western countries, because there’s no evidence to confirm this claim.

The mass media of European countries regularly and recklessly insult Islamic religious symbols, especially the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). The most prominent example of these insults was the publication of 12 blasphemous editorial cartoons by the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten in September, 2005 which prompted international anger. Many understood that such actions result in continued antagonism and bitterness, serving only to add fuel to the fire of anti-Islamic sentiments.

The term Islamophobia, which is described as an irrational fear of Islam and Muslims and prejudice against and hatred of them, came into common use following the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States. In actuality, the term was spread by the US government which launched two military expeditions in the Middle East for the alleged purpose of combating what they termed “Islamic fundamentalism” and terrorism.

As a result of media propaganda, Muslims in some countries are demonized and ostracized, unable to attend or perform prayers in public, assume government positions, pursue their social rights on equal terms with other citizens or adhere to their preferred dress codes.

It was recently revealed that the New York City Police Department (NYPD) has been engaged in widespread religious and ethnic profiling and the monitoring of Muslim communities and houses of worship in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut. A coalition of social activists in the US is calling on the Senate, the Department of Justice and the US Marshals Service to take action in response to the illegal police monitoring of the Muslims in greater New York.

The revelations are contained in documents obtained by the Associated Press (AP) showing that undercover NYPD officers in a “Demographics Unit” targeted the Muslim communities with the assistance of individuals linked to the CIA. NYPD officials are denying the Demographics Unit ever existed, despite the publication of an NYPD presentation that described the mission and makeup of the unit.

Independent sources, including Islamophobia Watch have reported that the monitoring of mosques and the daily affairs of Muslims in the United States has intensified since the 9/11 attacks; the CIA has been carrying out underground intelligence operations to scrutinize the daily life of Muslims within the country.

According to Islamophobia Watch, the CIA has dispatched undercover officers to public places such as bookstores, shops and cafes to keep an eye on the daily affairs of Muslims. It has also used informants known as “mosque crawlers” to monitor sermons delivered by Muslim Imams and take action when necessary.

While in western detention, Muslims are treated inequitably and unfairly. Several reports have been published which detail how Muslim prisoners of the United States and Europe have been subject to torture, mistreatment and abuse. Babar Ahmad, a citizen of south west London, is one of several Muslim detainees who are being held in European and American jails without being charged in a court hearing.

Ahmad was arrested on August 5, 2004 on charges of providing materials to a website which supports Chechen and Taliban insurgents. Since then, he has spent seven years in prison without trial.

Since his detainment, Ahmad has been subjected to torture and humiliation by the UK police. Scotland Yard officers have beaten him, stomped on his bare feet with boots, sexually abused him, mocked his Islamic faith by placing him into a Muslim prayer position and taunting, “Where is your God now?!” and applied life-threatening neck holds to him.

Muslims in the West are deterred from wearing clothing expressive of their faith, another representation of Islamophobic and xenophobic sentiments. A law in Belgium can fine and imprison for up to seven days a woman wearing burqa or niqab, a fabric covering for the lower face. In France, since April anyone wearing niqab or burqa in public is subject to fines of 150 euros and “citizenship training.” Moreover, an Italian parliamentary committee has drafted a law which bans women from wearing items that cover their faces in public.

Overall, what is clear is that Muslims in the West are treated as second-rate citizens; their social rights and freedom seem to be confiscated. Western mainstream media regularly associates terrorism with Islam and attributes terrorist activities to Muslims. The European governments overtly express their disdain for Islam and the Muslims, allowing the enactment of laws which limit and restrain social liberties of Muslims.

Islamophobia is a modern crusade against Muslims by societies which boast of being liberal and democratic, but in practice are xenophobic and intolerant. How can a truer image of Islam and Muslims be demonstrated to the West?

Anti-Islamophobia Resources

By Sheila Musaji,

Critical reports on the Islamophobia Industry TAM has a regularly updated collection of Existing Reports, Polls, and Studies on Islam, Muslims & Radicalization.  Here are those relating specifically to the Islamophobia Industry.

— ACLU report Blocking faith, freezing charity: chilling Muslim charitable giving in the “War on Terrorism financing”

— ACLU report Nothing to Fear: Debunking the Mythical “Sharia Threat” to Our Judicial System

— Bureau of International Information Programs report Muslims in America: A statistical portrait

— CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations) reports: Western Muslim minorities: Integration and disenfranchisement; The status of Muslim civiil rights in the U.S. 2009: Seeking Full Inclusion;  The mosque in America: A national portrait; and CAIR and the University of California, Berkeley’s Center for Race and Gender (CRG) report Same Hate, New Target:  Islamophobia and its impact in the United States

— The Center for American Progress (CAP) reports:  UNDERSTANDING SHARIAH LAW:  Conservatives’ Skewed Interpretation Needs Debunking, by Wajahat Ali and Matthew Duss, andFear Inc.: The roots of the Islamophobia Network in America.  Article about the report, with article collection here  The CAP Fear, Inc. report includes:  Funders - Donors Capital Fund; Richard Mellon Scaife Foundation;  Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation; Newton and Rochelle Becker Foundation and Newton and Rochelle Becker Charitable Trust;  Russell Berrie Foundation,  Anchorage Charitable Fund and William Rosenwald Family Fund; Fairbrook Foundation.  Misinformation Experts - • Frank Gaffney at the Center for Security Policy;  • David Yerushalmi at the Society of Americans for National Existence;  • Daniel Pipes at the Middle East Forum • Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch and Stop Islamization of America;  • Steven Emerson of the Investigative Project on Terrorism.

— Communique Partners report Western Perception of Islam and Muslims

— Hope Not Hate Campaign report Counter-Jihad’ Movement profiles over 100 individuals who are central to the international anti-Muslim network.

— The Institute for Social Policy and Understanding published A Portion of the People: Islam in a ‘Christian’ America

— MAPOS The Muslim American public opinion survey by Matt A. Barreto, University of Washington and Karam Dana, Harvard University

— MPAC published Counterproductive counterterrorism: How anti-Muslim bias is undermining America’s homeland security

— New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) White Paper Religious Freedom Under Attack:  The Rise of Anti-Mosque Activities in New York State charts rising anti-Muslim trends.

— People for the American Way (PFAW) report The Right Wing Playbook on Anti-Muslim Extremism

— Political Research Associates reports: Manufacturing the Muslim Menace: private firms, public servants, and the threat to rights and security, and Toxic to Democracy: Conspiracy Theories, Demonization, & Scapegoating by Chip Berlet

— SPLC reports:  Jihad Against Islam and The Anti-Muslim Inner Circle by Robert Steinback, and list of active anti-Muslim groups by state.  This list includes:  9/11 Christian Center at Ground Zero, Aggressive Christianity, The American Defense League, American Freedom Defense Initiative, Atlas Shrugs, Bare Naked Islam, Casa D’Ice Signs, Christian Action Network, Christian Guardians, Christian Phalange, Citizen Warrior, Concerned American Citizens, Concerned Citizens for the First Amendment, Escaping Islam, Faith Freedom, Insight USA, Islam: the Religion of Peace , and a big stack of dead bodies), Jihad Watch, Political Islam, Radio Jihad, Sharia Awareness Action Network, Silver Bullet Gun Oil, Stop the Islamization of America (SIOA), Sultan Knish a blog by Daniel Greenfield, Tennessee Freedom Coalition, The United West, U.S. Justice Foundation.  The SPLC Anti-Muslim Inner Circle report includes:  Bill French, Center for the Study of Political Islam - Brigitte Gabriel, ACT! for America and American Council for Truth - David Gaubatz, Society of Americans for National Existence (SANE) - Pamela Geller, Stop Islamization of America (SIOA), the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), Stop the Islamization of Nations (SION) - David Horowitz, Front Page Magazine, David Horowitz Freedom Center - John Joseph Jay, Stop Islamization of America (SIOA), the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) - Terry Jones, Dove World Outreach Center - Debbie Schlussel - Robert Spencer, Jihad Watch, Stop Islamization of America (SIOA), the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), Stop the Islamization of Nations (SION) - David Yerushalmi, Society of Americans for National Existence (SANE), Stop the Madrassa.

Via: "The American Muslim"