Khaleel Mohammed
Khaleel Mohammed
Remarks delivered by Professor Khaleel Mohammed on panel entitled “Can we Defeat Terrorism?” at the Hansen Institute for World Peace and Hostler Institute on World Affairs Lecture series at SDSU, on May 4, 2006.
Post 9/11: A Muslim Perspective.
The pervasive Muslim view of the so-called war on terrorism, and the repercussions for Muslims and Islam can be best expressed by the title of Professor Akbar Ahmed’s excellent book “Islam Under Siege.” Let us not misunderstand the meaning of the term: Islam is not only under siege from those without, but also from those within. The war on terrorism, you see, has not only brought about the demonization of the innocent, but has empowered the very entity against which it is supposedly waged.
Islamophobia—a latent centuries-old condition—has now surfaced as a strain of the most virulent potency. For all the declarations of the islamophobes that their war is not against Islam, but against Islamism—the rhetoric of evangelist preachers reveal the truth: Muslims and their religion are to be excised by whatever means possible. Influential preachers like Franklin Graham claim that the God of Islam and the God of Christianity cannot be the same being—and US generals like Boykin buy into that hateful concept. What has escaped that attention of many is that Franklin is simply redirecting Marcion’s medieval Judeophobia, having thus compared the God of Judaism and the God of Christianity.
It is far to demonize Islam without any recourse to proof. A few months ago, KPBS hosted a show about the Darfur genocide and the moderator claimed that it was a war of ‘fundamentalist Islam” against Christians. This blatant untruth—the overwhelming majority of the Darfur victims are Muslim—was presented with the calm conviction of absolute certainty—and the spellbound audience lapped it up almost as divine truth.
After 9/11, certain things have become painfully clear: Muslims have become the target. The imprisonments at Guantanamo, the recent revelations of secret CIA managed prisons in Europe, the calling by one broadcaster for the nuking of Mecca reminds us of a bygone time in which human rights were absent. Last week, a British Muslim student seeking to get a visa to study in the US was told that he had to pay an extra fee for a security check because his name resembled those of terrorists.
There is no point denying the obvious: a sense of fear and doom hangs over the average Muslim. And this very fear is what the Islamists capitalize upon—for every time there is an outrage committed against a Muslim, the Jihadists come closer to their goal of causing Muslims living in the west to feel that there is indeed a war, and that Muslims are the target. What the fear has brought is a circling of the wagons by the extremists on both sides of the fence. Today’s Union Tribune reported that in Sweden, the authorities had rejected a call by a local Muslim leader for special allowances for Islamic law among Muslims. Before 9/11, such a call would have been unthinkable—Muslims were willing to live their lives as citizens of secular countries, leaving Islamic law a subject for Mosque discussions only.
The perception, however, that there is an “us” and “them” has allowed the extremists to ask for the rights for “us” against “them.” The very warped perception forces extremists to want to define themselves against “them” –and so we see a rise of the wearing of the veil, and fundamentalism among Muslims more than ever before.
The US government has sought to eliminate any threat of terrorist activity—as any government ought to do—but has in many cases imprisoned innocents, attempted convictions on the most flimsy grounds—all the while giving actual terrorists a good look at how the system works. Given the way the US legal system operates, the war is not being won in any way, and casuistry and game-playing make a mockery of justice.
A few months ago, in San Diego, I was an expert witness in the Mohammad Abdi case. This Somalian was charged with several offences, among them, that he had not declared himself an employee of the Saudi government. The State’s position was that as an imam and propagator of Islam, he received a salary from the Saudi government. The defense’s argument was that in certain interpretations of Islam, the money paid to the imam is not considered as a salary—and having studied Islamic law, I knew this to be true. The state employed someone who was not familiar with Islamic terminology and used the shallowness of translation to insist that Mr. Abdi was lying. Now it is possible—and I state that simply for argument--that Mr. Abdi may have been lying about other issues of his case, but on the issue of the salary, he was correct. Nonetheless, he was convicted and given double the sentence requested by the state attorneys. He ended up requesting to be deported to Somalia rather than stay in a US jail.
In Lodi California, the opposite scenario happened. Trying to deceive the jury into believing that a very warlike supplication that an accused had on his person was actually a peaceful prayer, the defense sought recourse to what I call “the translation loophole.” What the defense chose not to reveal was that the translation offered was from a sect that is considered heretical in normative Islam, and that the accused would not ever want to be associated with that sect (the Ahmadiyya). The Ahmadiyya sect does not believe in Jihad or any concept of war, and obviously will seek to explain away any classical reference to Jihad.
The almost daily newspaper reports about US connections with torture of Muslim prisoners are letting the nation see that there is a serious double standard regarding Muslims. For an Iraqi “insurgent” to kidnap a civilian is barbaric and terrorist; but for US forces to “detain” a person’s wife or family in order to force him to cooperate is right.
As Mr. Chomsky pointed out in his address to you, the actions of 9/11 were nothing else but the worse form of terrorism. None can deny this. Yet, when Muslims ask if the US bombing of the Sudan medical plant was any different, there is either silence or denial. In fact, many people don’t even know that such a bombing occurred –buttressing the general Muslim view that our blood, our lives don’t count.
On an almost daily basis too we see the stories of the atrocities committed by Muslim extremists—but we hear little of the bombings of entire villages in territories now occupied by US troops. We hear of calls asking for Muslims to speak up and condemn terrorism—as if Muslims do not. We hardly hear of the Lord’s Army, a Christian terrorist group, or of the terrorist activity of any group.
For Muslims in general, there is a sense of frustration, although not of futility. We are frustrated that in the post-shoah world, wherein we supposedly declared “never again” that demonization of Muslims still occurs. We are frustrated at a justice system that has purportedly tried to stamp out terrorist activity, but has succeeded only in costing the taxpayers money, but not in convincing convictions. But we also know that in the beginning, hostile Arabs tried to stamp out Islam, and that after them, there were several others, including the Crusaders and the Mongols. But we are still here. The American people are beginning to see how they have been misled into accepting a nonsensical war. After 9/11, the number of converts to Islam has risen tremendously. The Qur’an states that God made us as several different nations, so that we may find pleasure in taking the time to know and understand each other. Perhaps it is time that we do that rather than rush to hate.
Remarks delivered by Professor Khaleel Mohammed on panel entitled “Can we Defeat Terrorism?” at the Hansen Institute for World Peace and Hostler Institute on World Affairs Lecture series at SDSU, on May 4, 2006.
Post 9/11: A Muslim Perspective.
The pervasive Muslim view of the so-called war on terrorism, and the repercussions for Muslims and Islam can be best expressed by the title of Professor Akbar Ahmed’s excellent book “Islam Under Siege.” Let us not misunderstand the meaning of the term: Islam is not only under siege from those without, but also from those within. The war on terrorism, you see, has not only brought about the demonization of the innocent, but has empowered the very entity against which it is supposedly waged.
Islamophobia—a latent centuries-old condition—has now surfaced as a strain of the most virulent potency. For all the declarations of the islamophobes that their war is not against Islam, but against Islamism—the rhetoric of evangelist preachers reveal the truth: Muslims and their religion are to be excised by whatever means possible. Influential preachers like Franklin Graham claim that the God of Islam and the God of Christianity cannot be the same being—and US generals like Boykin buy into that hateful concept. What has escaped that attention of many is that Franklin is simply redirecting Marcion’s medieval Judeophobia, having thus compared the God of Judaism and the God of Christianity.
It is far to demonize Islam without any recourse to proof. A few months ago, KPBS hosted a show about the Darfur genocide and the moderator claimed that it was a war of ‘fundamentalist Islam” against Christians. This blatant untruth—the overwhelming majority of the Darfur victims are Muslim—was presented with the calm conviction of absolute certainty—and the spellbound audience lapped it up almost as divine truth.
After 9/11, certain things have become painfully clear: Muslims have become the target. The imprisonments at Guantanamo, the recent revelations of secret CIA managed prisons in Europe, the calling by one broadcaster for the nuking of Mecca reminds us of a bygone time in which human rights were absent. Last week, a British Muslim student seeking to get a visa to study in the US was told that he had to pay an extra fee for a security check because his name resembled those of terrorists.
There is no point denying the obvious: a sense of fear and doom hangs over the average Muslim. And this very fear is what the Islamists capitalize upon—for every time there is an outrage committed against a Muslim, the Jihadists come closer to their goal of causing Muslims living in the west to feel that there is indeed a war, and that Muslims are the target. What the fear has brought is a circling of the wagons by the extremists on both sides of the fence. Today’s Union Tribune reported that in Sweden, the authorities had rejected a call by a local Muslim leader for special allowances for Islamic law among Muslims. Before 9/11, such a call would have been unthinkable—Muslims were willing to live their lives as citizens of secular countries, leaving Islamic law a subject for Mosque discussions only.
The perception, however, that there is an “us” and “them” has allowed the extremists to ask for the rights for “us” against “them.” The very warped perception forces extremists to want to define themselves against “them” –and so we see a rise of the wearing of the veil, and fundamentalism among Muslims more than ever before.
The US government has sought to eliminate any threat of terrorist activity—as any government ought to do—but has in many cases imprisoned innocents, attempted convictions on the most flimsy grounds—all the while giving actual terrorists a good look at how the system works. Given the way the US legal system operates, the war is not being won in any way, and casuistry and game-playing make a mockery of justice.
A few months ago, in San Diego, I was an expert witness in the Mohammad Abdi case. This Somalian was charged with several offences, among them, that he had not declared himself an employee of the Saudi government. The State’s position was that as an imam and propagator of Islam, he received a salary from the Saudi government. The defense’s argument was that in certain interpretations of Islam, the money paid to the imam is not considered as a salary—and having studied Islamic law, I knew this to be true. The state employed someone who was not familiar with Islamic terminology and used the shallowness of translation to insist that Mr. Abdi was lying. Now it is possible—and I state that simply for argument--that Mr. Abdi may have been lying about other issues of his case, but on the issue of the salary, he was correct. Nonetheless, he was convicted and given double the sentence requested by the state attorneys. He ended up requesting to be deported to Somalia rather than stay in a US jail.
In Lodi California, the opposite scenario happened. Trying to deceive the jury into believing that a very warlike supplication that an accused had on his person was actually a peaceful prayer, the defense sought recourse to what I call “the translation loophole.” What the defense chose not to reveal was that the translation offered was from a sect that is considered heretical in normative Islam, and that the accused would not ever want to be associated with that sect (the Ahmadiyya). The Ahmadiyya sect does not believe in Jihad or any concept of war, and obviously will seek to explain away any classical reference to Jihad.
The almost daily newspaper reports about US connections with torture of Muslim prisoners are letting the nation see that there is a serious double standard regarding Muslims. For an Iraqi “insurgent” to kidnap a civilian is barbaric and terrorist; but for US forces to “detain” a person’s wife or family in order to force him to cooperate is right.
As Mr. Chomsky pointed out in his address to you, the actions of 9/11 were nothing else but the worse form of terrorism. None can deny this. Yet, when Muslims ask if the US bombing of the Sudan medical plant was any different, there is either silence or denial. In fact, many people don’t even know that such a bombing occurred –buttressing the general Muslim view that our blood, our lives don’t count.
On an almost daily basis too we see the stories of the atrocities committed by Muslim extremists—but we hear little of the bombings of entire villages in territories now occupied by US troops. We hear of calls asking for Muslims to speak up and condemn terrorism—as if Muslims do not. We hardly hear of the Lord’s Army, a Christian terrorist group, or of the terrorist activity of any group.
For Muslims in general, there is a sense of frustration, although not of futility. We are frustrated that in the post-shoah world, wherein we supposedly declared “never again” that demonization of Muslims still occurs. We are frustrated at a justice system that has purportedly tried to stamp out terrorist activity, but has succeeded only in costing the taxpayers money, but not in convincing convictions. But we also know that in the beginning, hostile Arabs tried to stamp out Islam, and that after them, there were several others, including the Crusaders and the Mongols. But we are still here. The American people are beginning to see how they have been misled into accepting a nonsensical war. After 9/11, the number of converts to Islam has risen tremendously. The Qur’an states that God made us as several different nations, so that we may find pleasure in taking the time to know and understand each other. Perhaps it is time that we do that rather than rush to hate.
posted by Dipak K. Gupta at 5:59 PM
1 Comments:
Khaleel Mohammed cannot have it both ways. He dismisses the identification of Islam with terrorism as 'demonization of the innocent' but declares that the Wests' Islamophobia is revealed by the rhetoric of evangelist preachers. Why? The U.S is obviously secular and Franklin Graham is a name that is unknown to the vast majority of Christians like Catholics and Lutherans. On the other hand Osama BinLaden couches all his appeals on the same Sharia laws and Sunni rhetoric that is the basis for Islamic governments from Morocco to Bangladesh. Before WMD, before Iraq, before AbuGharib and before Guantanamo - when the U.S was about to invade Afghanistan - millions of Muslims demonstrated in dozens of Islamic countries, thousands waving posters of Osama and many burning American flags. Is Islam's fundamental nature thus revealed? The same stereotyping and generalizations that Khaleel uses to show the U.S is 'Anti-Muslim' works even better to potray Islam as a violent and intolerant faith. Simply take all the charges against the current administration like bombing innocents, detentions, official prejudice, irresponsible rhetoric and think of the AlQaeda equivalent. Who comes out looking better?
Now, where I agree with the author is that fear is causing the extermists on both sides to circle their wagons. I'm certainly no fan of the Bush administration and strong action against injustices whether in Immigration court or Guantanmo is definitly the way to go for the U.S. But it takes two hands to clap and there can be no onus of low expectations from the Islamic community. Khaleel rightly asks the U.S to take responsibility for it's actions, but implies that the Muslims have done all that they can. 'As if we do not', he says. Fine, but where and how. We see Muslims take to the streets of the U.S against cartoons in Denmark, invoking the same freedom of speech to denounce images they consider an insult. They angrily condemn U.S policy when bombs go astray and hit villages in far-away countries. But where are the protests when the Mosque in Samarra is blown up killing hundreds of Shia's. Even more perteninent, where are the angry demonstrations when Zaraqawi beheads innocent hostages in the name of Islam. Are Zaraqawi's actions not blasphemous? Where is the outrage? Instead, we hear that copies of these videos sell by the thousands in the Muslim world.
Is the 'virulently Islamapphobic' media not covering these counter-protests. Very well, please feel free to use the Internet to bring your message out. An article the same length as this one, detailing the fight by 'real' Muslims against the extrmists would be an excellent start. There are certainly enough Western and Christian critics of Bush, starting with the Pope himself. The very basis of Islamaphobia is that a significant pecentage of Muslims are sympathetic to Osama and his ilk; noting would counter it better than concrete examples showing how they are not.
Post a Comment
<< Home