After 9/11 many Muslims began saying "Islam is a religion of peace." An intellectually dishonest and vapid response to the equally intellectually dishonest and vapid statement that "Islam is a religion of violence." Any religion, comprised of a wide variety of believers, is a complex and nuanced system that cannot be defined by categorically statements. In fact, it must be comprised of contradictions and tensions as believers act on what they believe to be the Truth.
Moments of blatant public Islamophobia are becoming less frequent, in part because the reality of Muslim life in the US serves as a good antidote to negative narrative stereotypes, and in part because journalists are discovering Muslims that do not fit the narrative that they are trying to construct. However, as discourse around Muslim life is becoming more nuanced, so too is Islamophobia; it is not as blatant as it once was, and that is the threat. We are now seeing the emergence of an "intellectualized Islamophobia," much in the same we have an "intellectualized racism."
"Intellectualized Islamophobia" (II) appears in respectable publications and appears as objective writing, combining first-hand observation, history, and occasionally, theory. While disagreements about what observation and facts mean should be encouraged, what II does is reinforce a narrative that all Muslims are violent by definition. People who write in the II style may even concede that not all Muslims are violent, but it is in spite of their religion, not because of it.
A favorite trope of mine is the "man on the street" or "bookstore survey." Apparently, one can go into a bookstore in the Muslim-majority world and find objectionable material. This means that all Muslims are nefarious. However, if you go into a bookstore in New York and see Mein Kampf or The Communist Manifesto on the bookshelves, no thinking person would argue that New Yorkers are communist anti-Semites. Such broad generalizations also ignores the very real situation of poor literacy rates in the Muslim-majority world: Turkey (87%), Egypt (71%), and Pakistan (50%), and of course rates of sale.
How does an Islamist pamphlet compare to fiction or poetry in the same region? Finding the man on the street who screams "the West" is the great Satan is great for proving what one person thinks. How about what a billion Muslims might actually think? This smear is predicated on guilt by association and on the assumption that an "Other" is by definition different. The argument that "the availability of hate literature in the US is different than the hate literature outside of the US because it is" does not seem very sound. Neither does the argument that "there is one person of 10 million who hates me, so they all must."
One also sees attacks on Pres. Obama for wanting to treat Muslims with respect. While it is true that treating Muslims with respect will not stop terrorism, it undercuts one of the major arguments that these terrorists groups have: non-Muslims do not treat Muslims with respect. There is an adage I grew up with in my Muslim household that seems to apply, "you attract more flies with honey than with vinegar." It would seem that if you want to help bring about peace, threatening to constantly kill the other party does not presage good negotiations.
Of course, there is also the savior argument. There are Muslims and there is the West, and Muslims have only done good when the West colonized them. Such an argument ignores the large numbers of Muslims in the "West," and is essentially a pro-colonist argument. The basic premise is that only by being abused, beaten, degraded, and controlled will Muslims begin to question what the "good life" is, because the colonizers talk about it and it gives the colonizers the ability to brutalize another people. If there is a lesson that extremists learned from colonization, imperialism, and mercantilism, it is how to desire to subjugate and humiliate another people. The great flow of ideas was happening long before the European expansion, with classical Greek and Latin thought being transmitted from the Arab-Muslim world back into Europe; with Venice adopting the architecture of the "East." If it was not for this flow of ideas, the Enlightenment may never have come to pass.
While there may be fantasies of returning to a great colonial past, the so-called "Golden Age" of Islam happened long before colonization. The attempt to "spread democracy" in the Middle East under Pres. Bush was a incoherent combination of idealism and colonist thinking. The civilizing mission failed once more, and authentic movements like the 6 April Movement in Egypt were left to flounder, much like the Shi'ah uprising against Saddam after Gulf War I. This revisionist view of history ignores the long interaction between the Muslim and non-Muslim worlds, and focuses on returning to a period when European nations were colonial masters. Historically, that connection has been between Islamdom and Christendom, not nation-states. In the modern period, when we deal with nation-states and non-state actors, and need to choose what sphere we are operating in, the religious or political.
Clearly religion plays an important role in the thought of terrorist groups. These non-state actors must be met with both force and ideas. There is no other way to stop them and the spread of their ideology. On the other hand, we cannot treat state actors the same way, unless we revert to the colonial mold. At the political level many countries deal successfully with the largest theocracy in Europe, the Holy See, without moving away from the political language. What "intellectualized Islamophobia" seeks to do is justify political domination and neo-colonialism by creating a new sense of the "white man's burden" by masking political problems with religious language.
Tags: islam, islamophobia, muslim, racism
I cannot believe that the editors let this be printed! Please, get rid of poor, stilted language. A sentence such as (and there are way too many like this)"On the other hand, we cannot treat state actors the same way, unless we revert to the colonial mold." could have been much better with only one comma, the first, as the second was not required at all as "unless . . . " is not at all to be presented as separate from the main idea but as a part OF it! This type of mistake was called to my attention as it was made in the very first paragraph when it was written: "Any religion, comprised of a wide variety of believers, is a complex and nuanced system that cannot be defined by categorically statements." No commas were needed at all and they only serve to distract the reader to no end. Next, the use of "a" before consonants (with "h" being excepted per writing style) and "an" before a vowel other than "y" are "clear" points of writing. However, it was written: "Bush was a incoherent . . . " I am so flustered that this was able to pass muster here.
Please, do all of us a favor and "help" us to work with your ideas through better writing.
Now, you may ask me why I am pointing this out. It is writing such as this that lends less credibility to what, I feel, is a very interesting point into which I will look further. Please, like having a piece of lettuce on one's teeth, these errors are too distracting and, most certainly, you should really remove the lettuce before you speak. It is merely "polite." Also, I will be sure, when I read your next article, to thank you for doing so.
Anyse Joslin
anyse1@mac.com
As a grammar lover myself, I think Anyse1 point about good grammar is well taken. However, the first comma usage pointed out is not necessarily incorrect and I find that to be mere hair-splitting. The rest I agree with.
But what about the content?
I found this to be an accurate representation of the opinion many academics hold today. It seems to be a combination of the recognition that the so-called "Muslim issue" (the issue with terrorism) is not always, and certainly not necessarily, a product of Islam, and the growing recognition that the West, for all of its mercantilistic indiscretions, is not the great Evil in this equation, either. Academic self-deprecation is falling out of fashion.
The emphasis on the latter half of this combination is what is, in some areas of scholasticism is turning into what you labeled as "intellectualized Islamophobia." I think Obama's recent travels will help to elucidate this point to others both in America and abroad.
My only complaint is the unwillingness in this essay to deal with Muslims abroad as "the other." They are the other to the majority of non-Muslim Americans because of ideological differences which naturally come as a result of not being born an American, or a Westerner. Similarly, we are just as much the other to the Muslim world. Ignoring this reality just makes for good political correctness, and does not do much to further the cause of a mutual affair of reciprocity through communication.
To respond to the grammar hunter above: seriously? What the heck. Respond to the CONTENT. No one wants 9th grade grammar again!
I find that the effort, to defocus the readers' attention from the issue by distracting through secondary grammatical deliberations, appears immature and lacking substance - to say the least. The attempt to silence the opinion of Mr. Rashid fails to the visibility of the linguistic bias posed by the Mac User.
From a different perspective, I am trying not to think too much about the appeal of arrogance posed by Mac User Joslin, who apparently expects the rest of the world to write academically in English, but who possibly does not speak fluently any other language than her own.
Perhaps the relations between the English-speaking countries and the Arab-speaking countries would have long turned friendly and productive, if those among us who are Anglophiles would dedicate some time to learn Arabic. I would be interested to see how the English-writers would feel, if their attempts to communicate would be welcomed by as many arrogant formulations for their bad grammar in the Arab language as they bring up against Arab-speakers communicating with us in English.
- One concerned reader.
I agree with Hussein Rashid points regarding intellectualized Islamohobia, though I wonder how truly intellectual such activity is. It just seems lazy to me when someone says, "Well look in the Qu'ran...see, it's a violent religion!" "Well, there are more Islamic terrorists than Christian ones!" It's very uncritical intellectualism, if it's intellectual at all. The problem is, it appeals to those who are already Islamophobic, or on the fence, and it only breeds more idiocy. It's sad, and so very common.
@"One Concerned Reader" - I agree with all of your points except that I wouldn't consider Joslin's comments to be "arrogant." Arabic is a beautiful and difficult language for an English speaker to learn (and most likely vice versa) and I cannot say I have done so myself. I want to and plan to, and I expect my Arabic vocabulary, let alone grammar, will be atrocious to any native speaker or reader. So I see your point, and also Joslin's.
It would be worthy (though possibly not in THESE comments) to discuss the value of proper grammar in this era. With blogging a phenomena, what are we losing by adopting a more conversational, casual style of writing our opinions for public consumption? Maybe nothing. I don't know the answer.
What do most Muslims believe should happen to an apostate from Islam?
Comments closed
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.