Out of Arabia: Obama Speaks, India's Muslims Listen

NEW DELHI -- In his Cairo speech, President Obama made reference to seventeen Muslim-majority countries. He also spent a lot of time discussing a country where Muslims are a minority: his own. But he did not mention, at least not by name, one nation that Muslims have called home for centuries; a nation whose Muslim population exceeds that of the entire Persian Gulf; a nation where some of the Muslims best known to Americans were born, from Fareed Zakaria to Aasif Mandvi to Jamal Malik.

How could Obama forget about India?

That was a popular question at the American Center in Delhi, where the U.S. Embassy hosted a screening of Obama's speech. In a panel discussion afterward, a professor cited, approvingly, a long-winded column arguing that the speech should have been held in New Delhi. An audience member asked, with a quivering voice, "What is the Muslim world if it does not include India?"

But this cry of nationalism was taken up mostly by liberal Hindus. The Delhiite Muslims I spoke to were less interested in what Obama left out than in what he said.

Bushra Saeed, who recently finished a master's in biotechnology, was "relieved" to hear Obama affirm a woman's right to wear the hijab. "I mean, you see me," she said, referring to her own headscarf. "I'm studying. But still, a Muslim woman faces two things: it's her choice to wear the hijab, but the modern people stop her from wearing the hijab; or it's her right to study, but the traditional people stop her from studying. If education is a woman's choice, then clothes too [should be] a woman's choice."

Arif Ali Khan, a Muslim student at Jawaharlal Nehru University, was convinced that Obama won major points with Indian Muslims, even if he did not mention them explicitly. "Right now, the average Indian Muslim thinks that Saudia Arabia is one of the biggest funders of the Taliban. If anything, this is the problem Indian Muslims will have with the U.S.: 'Why are you funding these Saudi guys?' So the fact that [Obama] has stood up against corrupt Arab governments--I think Indian Muslims will be encouraged by this."

Shahnawaz Ali Rehan, Secretary of the Students Islamic Organization of India (SIO), failed to suppress his proud grin as he recounted Obama's biography: Harvard Law Review editor, accomplished author. "Obama is a powerful writer, powerful orator...He also addressed the emotion of individuals, like how we must pick a straight path, not the easiest path. The way he spoke...it was like a good mosaic. A good combination of data, good eloquent power, analysis, everything."

Suhail K. K., President of the SIO, said simply: "This speech was something that touched all of our hearts."

Of course, love for Obama does not always imply love for the United States. Suhail, for one, is as cynical about America as he is hopeful about its new President. "Obama is personally against the policy of imposing great power; but as a representative of the United States, he must represent the cause of war. The very existence of the United States is by killing, by imposing, starting with the discovery of America, starting with [Columbus]...When we see into the past, the U.S. has no moral right to preach about democracy. They're actually against all democratically elected governments they don't like: Cuba, Vietnam, Hamas."

Indeed, every Muslim I talked to, no matter how admiring of Obama, uttered some variation on the same meme: actions speak louder than words. "It's a very nice speech," Bushra said, "but we expect some actions in the future."

This is especially true, it seems, when it comes to Palestine.

According to Shahnawaz, "Palestine is the one thing all of the Muslims will be watching...This is a big move forward, that the U.S. president is saying that [Israeli] settlements must be stopped. This is a big achievement...but will it happen?"

Back inside the air-conditioned auditorium at the American Center, the post-speech debate raged on. A Hindu fundamentalist rose from his seat to declare that the Koran advocated violence, and he was promptly shouted down. The next audience speaker waxed poetic about what he called "the Gospel of Obama," to which the man next to me grumbled, in English, "useless fellow."

Restless, Arif and I wandered outside for a chai. "The old understanding of 'Americans are arrogant, they just want to eat a lot and have microwave ovens'--I think this is starting to change," Arif said, as much to himself as to me. "I think people will now be more able to see the complexities."

One can only hope.

Comments

[Blutenhalbmond]

A good question has been raised as to how did the writer knew that the chap who abused the Quran was a Hindu fundamentalist.
Well quite often in India, and it was probably the case here, a Hindu fundamentalist sports a certain kind of an attire, puts a red or saffron spot on his forehead in a specific way and flaunts a few other give aways. Maybe that was the case here.

[Petras24]

The article states: According to Shahnawaz, "Palestine is the one thing all of the Muslims will be watching...This is a big move forward, that the U.S. president is saying that [Israeli] settlements must be stopped. ...but will it happen?"

I worry: Has Obama set the expectations bar too high ? What if Obama can't deliver ? Will Muslims blame Obama ? America ? maybe just the Jews ?

If Obama can't deliver... will the outcome be WORST for America ?

Israel could simply balk or events could overtake any progress.. remember Camp David ? followed by the 2nd Intifada ? How did that work out ?

What if Israel attacks Iran ? or Iran goes nuclear ? or Hamas attacks Israel ?

What if Israel asks for mutual recognition BEFORE a settlement freeze ? and Hamas/FATAH balk ?

I wonder if Obama might have chosen easier goals: de-nuking North Korea ? de-nuking Iran ?

[kiran1207]

sorry but mentioning India as a muslim world is stupid. They comprise 2% of the population. So it would have been an uneducated thing to do. Look Obama is not the POTUS of india he does not have to impress each and every country in the world . He works for the safety of America. Get over it !

[jajenkins]

There are more people in India than in the whole of Africa and South American combined - 1 billion (yes, that's 9 zeros).

2% of a population of 1 billion is 20 million Muslims.

The definition of "uneducated" includes the inability to do simple arithmetic.

[Pixel8Ted]

Use the internet (or maybe a reference book) before citing numbers please.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/IN.html

Muslims are 13.4 % of India's 1.1 billion people. That's in the range of 156 Million People.

[mr101]

OldSchoolLiberal makes interesting remarks below on the content of that Hindu guy's assertion that "Koran advocated violence." I am not well-read in Islam to know if there is some substance in that assertion that is worthy of discussion or not. At worst, that Hindu guy is ignorant. Why not call him an ignorant idiot, instead of calling him a "Hindu fundamentalist" (which, to a degree, casts a negative shadow on Hinduism itself through guilt by association) without apparently knowing anything more about him?

Do we casually call every Christian (or Jew) out there that doesn't like Muslims, or says something ignorant about Islam, a "Chrisian (or Jewish) fundamentalist?" We don't. In most cases, we should not. Not every person that has a negative perception about a certain aspect of another religion is a fundamentalist, or can be automatically deemed to be one. The word "fundamentalist" is loaded and hence it should used judiciously.

[OldSchoolLiberal]

Mr101 -- I think the key is to make a very rigid distinction between prejudice against Muslims which is always wrong and critique against Islam which might be right or wrong but at the very least must be tolerated.

[mr101]

I agree.

[TryToBeFlexible]

Critique against religion should not just be "tolerated". Critique of relition, in other words, freedom of speech, should be considered a bedrock right. Without it, there is no freedom.

[Abd-ul-Latif]

Fareed Zakaria is a nice man and all...but...a Muslim? Why, because of the way his name sounds? I guess he's America's favorite "Muslim" because he's so non-threatening and secular. I'm sorry, but no, Muslims are not an ethnic group. We are a religious group. It's based on belief, not family background.

[dsws]

This reminds me of fundamentalist Christians who don't consider mainstream denominations "Christian". One doesn't lose one's religious identity by being secular. The US is full of secular Christians. Turkey is full of secular Muslims. Fareed Zakaria is widely identified as a Muslim.

[OldSchoolLiberal]

How do we the Hindu man was a fundamentalist for just mentioning that the Koran advocates violence. It does, for one example, in the 9th Sura. The Old Testament also has places advocating violence. A counterweight is that Christianity abrogates many commands to violence such as slaughtering and wiping out the Amekolites, and the Jews created an oral tradition and extra law in the Talmud which does the same. How can we within and without Islam create such a way to reinterpret the call to Jihad in the Islamic tradition and help develop a powerful reconstructed or reformed tradition to match the development of the other Abrahamic faiths? That is the question, but simply calling someone a fundamentalist of a different stripe for noticing what is clearly laid out in the Islamic tradition and what is expounded on by Islamic scholars themselves (as well as those doing terror in Islam's name) is part of the problem, not the solution.

[Abd-ul-Latif]

You are ignoring the entire Qur'an and focusing on only one verse, taking it entirely out of context. That is something that all FUNDAMENTALISTS do.

The Qur'an by and large advocates PEACE. But it is not pacifist per se. The Qur'an tells us to fight back against oppression and tyranny--but only after attempts to make peace have failed.

The history of Christianity, on the other hand, is one of violence, torture, oppression, and unreasoning opposition to science and knowledge of all kinds. The contrast couldn't be more clear. I respect Jesus, upon whom be peace, but Christians as a group are historically the most violent people on Earth. And don't forget the Iraq war, largely spearheaded by a fundamentalist Christian president and many Christian generals, who thought they were doing God's work.

[OldSchoolLiberal]

If you follow the standard pattern of abrogation then the Koran leans towards a call to violence rather than peace and by the way, that peace is always a Pax Islamica, meaning the non-believers are pacified and either accept Islam and the mandate of Zakat or else are allowed in an subdued position to pay the jiza in replacement.

I have no problem with your critique of Christain peoples in history though I would say that is not Christianity. In fact Bartholomew de las Casas, for one example, got the catholic church to condem the conquistadors for their terrible actions in South America.

Its not a cat fight or a zero sum game between Christianity and Islam.

The important point is that Islam. like other belief systems is open to criticism and doing so does not mean one is prejudice against Muslims.

[kiran1207]

I actually heard that the "holy war" that the Qur'an is talking about is one that is in the mind between right and wrong. It's not an actual holy war. I dont know if this is true or not but whatever it is people are misusing it's meaning to act crazy.

I dont get these 3 religions, I like buddhism.

[huffpostcommentator2]

America hasn't outlawed women's head dresses. Of course it is your own choice to wear one if you want. But don't expect to be treated special because of that. I don't have a problem with the traditional muslim headscarves as long as they remain personal choices all the way through. But it just so happens that those that wear these types of clothings tend to be accompanied with ideas of sexual and moral "purity" and they feel that they are somehow morally superior to those that are scantily clad in comparison to them. And they feel that they deserve to be treated with respect. And they also feel that the scantily clad women deserve to be harassed...or at the very least they will understand where the perpetrator doing the harassing is coming from (when in fact there is no excuse for the perpetrator at all). So the point is that the muslim head dress is based on a religious idea that says that women need to cover as much of their skin and hair to avoid stares and sexual advances from men. Until this idea is challenged the muslim women wearing headscarves (and also the men who support them) will keep on believing that sexually repressing themselves is morally superior and will demand to be treated with more "respect" and will even go on to preach their perceived moral superiority to others. Not good.

[We-Are-The-Ones]

What have the Muslims done to match Obama's actions so far. Do we have a speech by any Muslim leader?

The next step is not Obama's it is the Muslim world's next step.

[kiran1207]

this is true. Obama has done a lot. He has made it clear that Iraq was a mistake but finding BINLADEN is a priority, which as an american president should do.

Bush/cheney did not keep us safe, if they did, twin towers would be here today, and Iraq would not have civil war. Sometimes I think the right wing is scarier than these extremists, pretty much the same.

[Usama]

Its true. The underlying reality beneath Obama's eloquent and touching speech is will his actions be consistent with his words, or is he merely presenting a fine, captivating smoke screen that obfiscates the view to a kill.

[indyfromphilly]

Well... This is a two way street.. President Obama has taken the first few steps.. but apart from saying he needs to do more.. the muslim world has done squat.. Adhmadenajad is still running around making hate speeches.. No leader in the Muslim world rebuked the message by Bin-laden prior to Obama's speach. Obama's approach is to try and reason with these guys .. if they dont mend their ways then he is going to toughen up...

The results of the Lebanese elections are encouraging although Hezbollah is too powerful in lebanon and dont really need to be in power to continue their activities...

Iran will have the next opportunity to speak up in their elections...

We'll just have to wait and see...