|
Why Liberals Fear Islam
The Only Good Muslim is the Anti-Muslim
By M. JUNAID LEVESQUE-ALAM
28/08/08 "Counterpunch" - -- For some, Barack Obama’s stature as
a man of the left has fallen precipitously, like late autumn
leaves shed by branches bowing to the will of winter.
Disappointment has often been self-inflicted. Supporters have
dipped their pens deeply into the inkwell of Obama’s inspiring
story and written their own lines on Afghanistan, oil drilling,
or the death penalty - only to see these wishful words
unceremoniously erased by presidential politics or the senator’s
own views.
But for American Muslims and progressive allies, both eager to
see an end to the vilification of Arabs and Muslims in the
United States, Obama’s mantra of hope and change barely set in
before it expired.
First we witnessed the embarrassing spectacle of micro-level
ethnic cleansing when two Arab women with headscarves were
whisked offstage ahead of a campaign photo-op in Detroit. Then
we heard Obama call false claims about his purportedly Muslim
identity “smears” – as if he was accused not of belonging to an
Abrahamic faith observed by more than 1.2 billion people, but of
slinking out of Congress to visit a brothel. Soon after we saw
the senator genuflect before AIPAC and call for a permanently
Israeli Jerusalem - a vision the Jewish state has assiduously
tried to realize by macro-level ethnic cleansing, purging its
Arab residents.
A more recent political maneuver also turned out to be a purge:
the Obama campaign’s Muslim outreach coordinator, Mazen Asbahi,
“resigned” this month after a brief stint of several days. The
event went almost unnoticed.
But two sharply different responses to this episode - and the
standing afforded to the authors of these responses - reveal
that the senator is not alone in failing to stanch America’s
anti-Islamic miasma. Rather, the shortcoming is a collective
one, shared by many liberals whose prejudice against Muslims and
Arab-Americans is surpassed only by an apparent disinterest in
correcting it.
One response to the resignation came from James Zogby. An
Arab-American Christian, Zogby’s credentials as a man rooted in
his community are matchless. He helped found the American-Arab
Anti-Discrimination Committee. He led non-sectarian campaigns to
assist war victims in Palestine and Lebanon. And he serves as
president of the Arab American Institute, a Washington, D.C.
think tank.
Yet despite 30 years of community advocacy and experience, his
views on Arab and Muslim issues appear in just two popular
non-ethnic publications. One is The Huffington Post. The other
is in Egypt.
Commenting on Asbahi’s short tenure, Zogby writes, “In the brief
time he held his position we spoke almost daily. He learned so
much and did so much to make Arab Americans and American Muslims
feel included in the campaign.”
“Then,” Zogby observes, “it happened.” One of the many websites
“monitoring” Muslims in America discovered that eight years ago
Asbahi served on a board which included a controversial imam.
Asbahi resigned from the board after two weeks.
Like vultures eyeing a wounded gazelle, the usual assortment of
right-wing bloggers descended on Asbahi. They vilified him as a
closet fundamentalist for once belonging to the Muslim Student
Association, a well-established mainstream group with branches
on dozens of college campuses across the U.S. and Canada.
Not to be outdone, the Wall Street Journal threatened to amplify
the echo chamber, the walls of which reverberate with the
hysterics of its associates in the right-wing “blogosphere.”
Faced with mounting pressure and bereft of support from any
quarter, Asbahi and the campaign “agreed” he would relinquish
his post.
This sequence of events comes as no surprise to anyone familiar
with neoconservative methods. It is but a reenactment of
previous attacks: the mendacious 2005 campaign to oust Columbia
University professors who used Israel’s own archives to
dismantle pleasant fictions about its history; the dissemination
of e-mails containing crude anti-Semitic nonsense sent out in
professors’ names to destroy their credibility; and the ongoing
efforts to publicly intimidate universities into denying
academics employment or tenure.
But amid the past few years of attacks, outrages, and, yes,
smears, hurled at Muslims and Arabs in this country, one Muslim
figure stands curiously unsullied: Irshad Manji. She, too, wrote
about Asbahi’s dismissal, though we would do well to acquaint
ourselves with the author first.
Unlike most of her coreligionists, Manji has been lavished with
attention and awards by mainstream and liberal America. She
garnered Oprah Winfrey’s first “Chutzpah” award, Ms. Magazine’s
“Feminist for the 21st Century” seal of approval, New York
University’s Wagner School “Moral Courage Project,” a column in
The Huffington Post, production of a PBS documentary, and the
list goes on.
In an era when Muslims find themselves boxed in by political
attacks here and military assaults abroad, one wonders: what is
Manji’s secret to success?
She wrote a book - and not just any book. Titled The Trouble
With Islam Today, hers won applause not only from liberals but
other, more interesting quarters. The Wall Street Journal
praised it as “refreshingly provocative” and “deserv[ing] of the
attention it is receiving.” Daniel Pipes declared, “Manji - a
practicing Muslim - brings real insight to her subject.”
Phyillis Chesler beamed, “Manji has written a bold, sane,
passionate, compelling book.” And Alan Dershowitz announced,
“Manji is a fresh, new and intriguing voice of Islamic reform.”
A fine example of damning with loud praise.
What could a Muslim have written that would delight supporters
of bombing and torturing Muslims? What sweet words could have
moved Daniel Pipes - who specializes in hyping anti-Islamic
hysteria on Fox News and elsewhere - to welcome into his
generous bosom the ideas of a “practicing Muslim?” What might
motivate Alan Dershowitz, better known for backing the torture
of Muslims than for reading their books, to plug Manji’s effort?
The answer lies in the content. The Trouble With Islam Today is
an unhinged polemic that derides Muslims and demeans their
faith. Examining a few of the book’s points should reveal what
has caught the fancy of neoconservatives and liberals alike.
The author devotes two pages to comparing Osama bin Laden to
Prophet Muhammad. “Is it mere happenstance,” Manji rhetorically
asks, “that bin Laden spends so much time in caves, like the
meditating [Prophet] did?” With penetrating and piercing logic -
in the sense that one must penetrate one’s skull and pierce the
cortex to succumb to it - she goes on in this vein, declaring
“camel saddles” and “online transactions” twin evils. The
“parallels” between Osama, the man who blesses the murder of
innocent people, and Muhammad, the man who forgave the murderers
of his closest companions, “continue to proliferate,” Manji
insists, much to the delight of the Muslim-haters behind the
curtains.
A good portion of the book is also dedicated to attacking the
Quran (and the Quran alone), which the intrepid author does
without any background in religious studies or a single
footnote. But no matter. This book, Manji intones, is
“profoundly at war with itself.” Religious texts should
apparently read like do-it-yourself plumbing guides, bereft of
subtlety or layers of meaning, particularly if you are trying to
flush the whole thing down the toilet to boost your celebrity
status among Islamophobes.
Manji’s fans must especially enjoy her excoriation of Muslims as
fake victims. Muslims wallow in their “screaming self-pity,” she
snickers, as though one ought to see the fuselage of cruise
missiles as half-full rather than half-empty as they fly en
route to the nearest wedding celebration or apartment building.
Manji’s attacks on Muslims appear almost kind next to the
beating she doles out to logic itself. She surmises that since
Muslims have been more harmed by Muslims than non-Muslims (based
on what data or criteria, we dare not guess), there is little
reason to complain about atrocities authored under the “war on
terror.” She does not add whether she also ordered families of
Sept. 11th victims to get over themselves when the casualties
were surpassed by that year’s domestic homicides - a case of
“Americans having been more harmed by Americans than
non-Americans.”
Finally, Manji enjoys ridiculing dispossessed Palestinians.
Ignoring over two decades of work by Jewish scholars and human
rights groups on Israeli ethnic cleansing and massacres, she
neatly eliminates the Palestinians altogether by dubbing them
Jordanians and hails Israel for its “compassion.” It must have
been precisely this “compassion” that moved 23 ANC veterans,
several of them Jewish, to compare the Israeli occupation with
South African apartheid during a recent visit.
Now well-acquainted with America’s favorite Muslim, let us turn
to her article on the departure of Obama’s former coordinator,
Mazen Asbahi.
In a Huffington Post piece, she demonstrates no concern about
the vilification enabled Asbahi’s dismissal. Indeed, she fails
to mention it even once. Is this because Manji is too busy
contributing to the problem to pause and reflect? Or is it
because this would upset her core base - the neoconservatives
who mount these smear campaigns?
Whatever the case, Manji performs her predictable pre-programmed
attack routine, observing contemptuously, “…Mazen Asbahi has
just resigned. I can't say I'm disheartened. He'd been embraced
by groups like the Muslim Public Affairs Council and the Islamic
Society of North America, renowned for their conservative
politics and ‘moderate’ double-speak.”
Writing a piece occasioned by attacks on one Muslim, Manji
manages to magnify the insult by attacking thousands of other
Muslims.
According to her politics, anyone who does not dance to the
detonation of cluster bombs is already suspect. So her invective
aimed at groups representing thousands of American Muslims,
which she never bothers to back up with arguments, is
understandable.
Not yet satisfied with herself, she goes on to pant about “most”
American Muslims being stuck in a 7th century - or perhaps 10th
century, depending on her mood - “time warp.” Serving as 21st
century America’s doctors, teachers, engineers, shopkeepers, and
plant workers, Muslims have been too busy to notice this
worrisome defect.
Concluding with a few shopworn words about “moral courage” and
“revolutionary ethos,” Manji polishes off her attacks on the
community by invoking vague platitudes about Muslim “reform.”
This is Manji’s sole gimmick: disingenuous calls for Muslims to
move forward belied by support for those pulling America
backward.
What does the liberal adulation of a professional Islamophobe -
one openly adored by neoconservatives, no less - say about the
state of American liberalism? Will liberals come to respect and
support genuine Muslim and Arab voices, like Zogby and countless
unrecognized figures? Or will they continue to lazily rely on
self-professed stand-ins like Irshad Manji?
If liberalism persists on its present path, it will not only
alienate a targeted community in America but pave the way for
further persecution.
Perfectly illustrating this point is The New York Times’ fawning
characterization of Manji as “Osama bin Laden’s worst
nightmare.” This is very far from the truth.
For years, many Muslim and non-Muslim voices have said bin
Laden’s ideology is a freak phenomenon, fashioned in the
ghoulish laboratory of Cold War politics and fed on a steady
diet of American –Israeli assaults in the Middle East. At odds
with more than 1,300 years of Muslim thought and history, these
voices have insisted, bin Laden is a perversion of genuine
Islam.
But Manji argues the opposite: bin Laden is a genuine product of
Islam, which is itself perverted. Osama, we will recall, is for
Manji the new Muhammad.
In showering attention and accolades on Manji, many liberals
thus validate and promote the idea that extremist Islam is Islam
itself. Could bin Laden dream of a greater gift? Could the
neoconservatives?
Perhaps liberals find Manji’s message appealing because
ascribing extremism to some innate feature of Islam “disappears”
from view the consequences of American foreign policy. Invasion
and occupation disappear. Torture and abuse disappear. Corpses
of slaughtered civilians and carrions of neutralized nations
disappear.
The desire to own a clear conscience, even one obtained through
the muddiest logic, should never be underestimated.
There may be other answers: a fear of questioning the dominant
narrative; of criticizing Israel; of discovering Islamic
perspectives; of engaging the Other, who is often harangued but
rarely heard.
Whatever the reason, American liberals would do well to stop
glorifying anti-Muslim celebrities and start building
relationships with honest Arab and Muslim voices.
We are waiting.
M. Junaid Levesque-Alam blogs about America and Islam at
Crossing the Crescent (
http://www.crossingthecrescent.com ) and writes about
American Muslim identity for WireTap magazine. Co-founder of
Left Hook, a youth journal that ran from Nov. 2003 to March
2006, he works as a communications coordinator for an
anti-domestic violence agency in the NYC area. He can be reached
at: junaidalam1 AT gmail.com
Click on
"comments" below to read or post comments
Comment
Guidelines
Be succinct, constructive and
relevant to the story.
We encourage engaging, diverse and meaningful commentary.
Do not include personal information such as names, addresses,
phone numbers and emails. Comments falling outside our
guidelines – those including personal attacks and profanity –
are not permitted.
See our complete
Comment
Policy and use this link
to notify us if you have concerns about a
comment. We’ll promptly
review and remove any inappropriate postings.
Send Page To a Friend
In
accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this
material is distributed without profit to those
who have expressed a prior interest in receiving
the included information for research and
educational purposes. Information Clearing House
has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator
of this article nor is Information ClearingHouse
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
|