The pervasive intolerance, discrimination and violence confronting American Muslims more than a decade after 9/11 hardly comes as a shock to anyone these days.
In fact, according to a 2011 Gallup Research Study, approximately one-half of nationally representative samples of Mormons, Protestants, Catholics, Muslims and Jews agree that the majority of Americans are biased toward American Muslims. Sadly, bias-based school bullying, religiously motivated employment discrimination, anti-Muslim hate crimes and opposition to benign mosque construction and expansion projects have become the new, unfortunate "normal."
What may come as a surprise to some, however, are the creative responses American Muslims are adopting to cope with and counter such bias.
Meet Aymann Ismail, a 22-year-old American Muslim artist who currently resides in Brooklyn, N.Y. Ismail is a filmmaker who has been involved with video since the age of 15, when he discovered his love for art in high school. A medium of communication, film means a lot more to him, however, than a source of entertainment; rather, it is a tool for combating ignorance and undermining anti-Muslim stereotypes.
"Being a Muslim in America means you are part of a very tightly knit community that is under attack constantly," Ismail observed. "Whether it be on television dramas or the news, Muslims are painted in a light that makes them look violent and uncivil ... I am proud that I am both a Muslim and an American, and I want to use my talents as an artist to help change the minds of as many Americans as possible who have false information about Muslims."
In addition to confronting flawed perceptions, Ismail also strives to use his artistic ability to create genuine dialogue to bridge the narrative gap between communities here, and across the world.
"Islamaphobia has really gripped the public and everyone seems to be afraid of some kind of Islamic invasion," he says. "I hope to open people's eyes and show them that as Americans, we are just as afraid of terrorism and do not condone violence, just as much as any other American."
Illustrative of this earnest desire to create beneficial dialogue within our global human family is the following almost seven-minute video: https://vimeo.com/16696682.
In it, Ismail interviews college students around the Rutgers University campus in New Jersey about Muslims and Americans, highlighting a few cultural and religious problem areas. For instance, Ismail asked students, selected at random, "Do you guys know the differences between being a Muslim and being an Arab?"
Unfortunately, many struggled to draw a distinction between the two.
When asked, "What are the stereotypes you hear [around] these terms," students responded almost on cue, "All Muslims and Arab people are terrorists," "Turbans and beards," "Lots of clothing for women," "Deserts," "Extremists, beneath you" and "Very conservative, very traditional."
Notably, more than one student identified the media as the primary source reinforcing such negative perceptions, while another cited FOX News as a particular source of consternation.
Next, Ismail conducted a similar interview in pre-Revolution Egypt. Among other inquiries, he questioned young Egyptian males (similarly chosen at random) about their views of Americans and our country. Responses frequently focused on democracy, education and technology.
"I interviewed Egyptians about how they feel about their own country and what their opinion is about Americans," he explained. "Combined, it is a dialogue between the West and the Middle East. And that is exactly what needs to happen in our country to expel these stereotypes: dialogue."
Significantly, Ismail then used the comparative footage to facilitate precisely that -- a candid exchange -- at a Rutgers-sponsored event attended by more than 100 faculty members and students.
A robust Q & A ensued.
"Everyone was so curious as to how these Egyptians weren't screaming 'Death to the Infidels' and 'Death to America,'" he recalls. "Everyone asked questions about daily life, and the role of Islam in a country like Egypt, and how it has been preserved in the Muslim community here in America. Dialogue is the first step in dispelling ignorance."
If you haven't already, take a moment to watch Ismail's footage.
To be sure, perceptions matter -- they inform public opinion and may manifest themselves in harmful actions, such as incidents of bias, hate or even violence against innocents. Ultimately, the dialogue envisioned by Ismail is one effective means of enhancing intercultural understanding, preventing and resolving conflict and promoting peace initiatives, here and abroad. This is particularly true of our classrooms, which are natural learning environments.
Rutgers should be applauded for sponsoring such an exchange and other institutions, including high schools, should emulate the Rutgers model by fostering and facilitating candid, age-specific inter-cultural exchanges -- regularly.
I incorporate high schools by design: Last Spring, I was asked to conduct a female empowerment workshop in Manhattan. The workshop's participants consisted of approximately 25 young American Muslim girls hailing from New York's five boroughs, and ranging in age from 12 to 20. Notably, all but one attendee donned a Hijab.
When asked by a show of hands how many had experienced an act of discrimination or had been otherwise bullied in school, they looked perplexed until one asked aloud, "Do you mean being called a terrorist?" Upon responding in the affirmative, all of the participants raised their hands. When asked if they had related the incident to a parent, family member or school administrator, none of the participants reported doing so. When asked why, they explained, "No one is going to do anything about it," and "We get called 'terrorist' all the time," while describing additional instances of harassment experienced in delis, at gas stations, on the street and other places of public accommodation.
Time and again, while engaging with Muslim youth at schools, universities and community forums, a common anecdotal thread characterizing their ultimate educational experience is underreported bias-based bullying and otherwise discriminatory incidents at school. The statistics barely glimpse the prejudice endemic to the Muslim educational experience.
Hence, the urgency underlying dialogue and cross-cultural education.
Moreover, these conversations should be all inclusive in our increasingly multicultural societies -- meaning, they should not just center on the themes highlighted within Ismail's footage but educational exchanges should also encompass other minority racial, ethnic and religious groups whose interests and narratives are frequently underrepresented, misunderstood or distorted in mainstream discourse.
And what better way to begin the conversation than through art?
Common Ground News Service: #MyJihad Is to Not Let Others Dictate What Muslims Are
Natasha Scripture: World Hijab Day: Finding Myself Under a Veil
Khaled Diab: Egypt's Women of Mass Destruction
Kelly James Clark: Muslims for Peace
First Amendment, US Constitution (Ratified 12/15/1791)
If we believe in our Republic, in our form of Democracy, then there is room at the table for all of us to sit in peace, pray in peace and raise our families in peace. Our languages have always been thick with accents, our clothing of many colors and styles, our prayers prayed fervently in different ways and places. It is this mosaic, it is this family of people that choose to live together that makes us different. We can offer the world hope if only we strive ardently to follow the heart of our own laws. It is not easy to live up to our code of equality for all. Indeed we sometimes fall short with extremists of all creeds, yet it is our responsibility, those of us that realize we are brothers and sisters on this small planet to ever seek a way to find our peace and provide a place at the table for each other. Peace, Salaam, Shalom, Mír, La Paix, Pingan, Der Frieden, Solh Dari, Heiwa, La Paz, Amaní, Amniat, Barish, Hoa Bình....so difficult to find in our world, if not for ourselves, at least for our children.
The majority of organized religions in the U.S. preach the principle, "Do not unto others that which you would not want done to you." But religious hypocrisy is nothing new.
As a Jew, I view Muslims and other immigrants of non-Judeo/Christian faiths as the "new Jews" in terms of persecution. I would not want anyone to be the object of the discrimination that my grandparents, parents, and I have faced.
What happened is that certain 'Courts of Equity' (i.e., Family Court) heard cases where every single participant is Muslim AND the matter before the Court involved questions of Family Law and matters of subjective judgement (just like any divorce case - where for example teenagers are given a choice of household) - in such instances, if a Judge simply took into account the different culture, claims were made by dishonest (Tea Party) Politicians that such Judge was "Implementing Sharia Law!".
Next we saw 'articles' on WND and other conservative websites that "What's next? Chopping off the hands of a boy for stealing? Beheadings? Honor Killings Endorsed by Courts following Sharia Law!?!"
Hysteria has already brought America to great shame when Japanese Americans were interned and denied Constitutional Rights. Many American extremists are deeply inimical to Muslims - how far will the rest of us allow them to go?
Is there an insidious sense that the Constitution is somehow not fully applicable to Muslims? That there is some survival doctrine allowing willful blindness in the name of Security?
The Constitution IS our security - any compromise of it not only shames us, but endangers us.
7 hours ago ( 2:28 AM)
Jan seems to think American Muslims are foreigners and "colonizers."
==============
Not quite right.
I believe that American Muslims who are Islamists are Sharia colonizers in present American culture, just as Europeans were once colonizers in Native American culture.
American Islamists want to do to American culture what Europeans did to Native American culture.
American Muslims who do not believe that a specific sect of Muslims are divinely ordained to politically rule all religions through Sharia law are not colonizers, but loyal American citizens--in contrast to Islamists.
Do you personally believe that a specific sect of Muslims is divinely ordained to politically rule all religions through Sharia law?
For sure the prejudice against Muslims is sad and hurtful, even illegal in some instances. However, a small passage in the above quote "very tightly knit community" is part of the problem. Becoming known in the larger community will increase understanding and decrease the baseless fears. I cannot say how it is in other places but in our area the small community of Muslims are never seen outside of the work area, and even then all contact is only professional. Maybe there is fault on both sides?
@Abdul-Halim Vazquez:
Me: For non Muslims to accept your assertion that the American version of Islam exists would require a leap of faith.
----------------------------
No. Just examine Warithdeen Muhammad, Zaid Shakir, Hamza Yusuf, Abdul-Hakim Jackson and all the other people and statements I referenced.
============
Okay. Let's see your evidence that any one or all of those Muslims have created an American version of Islam that prohibits American Muslims from jihad attacks on America and Americans.
If they have done it, I will acknowledge it.
I am simply unaware of the existence of any such thing by any of those Muslims or any other Muslims anywhere.
Sherman Jackson's Jihad and the Modern World and
Zaid Shakir's Jihad is Not Perpetual Warfare.
Also, as odd as it may seem EVEN OBL was opposed to American Muslims attacking the US because a Muslim should never betray their trusts. So mainstream American Muslims are certainly opposed to attacking the US.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/osama_secret_letters_twisted_rip_hKEnTwX3YMrNT11bDkVaiK
I don't believe such an interpretation of Islam exists, but I just may not be aware of it.
http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2013/02/11/265706.html
Muslims--and only Muslims--can change this doctrine of Sharia law:
" (O: Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and it is etymologically derived from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion. And it is the lesser jihad.
[...]
http://www.shafiifiqh.com/maktabah/relianceoftraveller.pdf
I would like to hear from any Muslim who can explain why--at least as far as I know--only a few scholars meeting in Turkey and a single Muslim scholar in England have made any public effort against this doctrine, and why that meager effort has been made only within the Islamic community.
If Muslims want to overcome the public perception of Islam as a violent religion, public repudiation of that doctrine on a massive scale would be a guaranteed success.
As time passes since 9/11 without any such public effort, more and more non Muslims wonder what is stopping Muslims from repudiating such a terrible doctrine.
Why would you say that "the image of Muslims that is in tatters because of the doctrine of the lesser jihad" ..... and then cite a text from the 14th century that most Muslims are not familiar with, at all?
(As I've seen quite a few Muslims tell you.)
The idea that "orthdox" Muslim doctrine supports aggressive, violent jihad is your guess -- nothing more.
It's going to take more than words in a book to convince any significant number of people that your concerns are valid; it's going to take a sizable number of Muslims in this country saying and acting in a manner that shows they do believe in that "orthodox doctrine" exactly as you say they do.
As far as I can tell, actual signs of that are, well ----- zero.
1. Bin Laden:
"The matter is summed up for every person alive: either submit, or live under the suzerainty of Islam, or die…. Such, then, is the basis of the relationship between the infidel and the Muslim. Battle, animosity, and hatred—directed from the Muslim to the infidel—is the foundation of our religion.”
(The Al Qaeda Reader, p. 42.)
2. Major Hasan emailed Anwar al Awlaki and asked him "when jihad is appropriate, and whether it is permissible if innocents are killed in a suicide attack.[60]"
Among the things Awlaki was saying on his website at the time was:
"The bullets of the fighters of Afghanistan and Iraq are a reflection of the feelings of the Muslims towards America".[67]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nidal_Malik_Hasan#Religious_and_ideological_beliefs
I believe most Americans would welcome the creation of an American Islam that prohibited jihad attacks by American Muslims against America and Americans, don't you? Only Muslims can do this, and they haven’t.
Many of us wonder why it hasn't been done in the 11 years since 9/11. What is the problem?
The "lesser jihad" is the physical struggle
against the enemies of Islam.[1] This physical struggle can take a violent form
or a non-violent form. The proponents of the violent form translate jihad as
"holy war",[8][9] although some Islamic studies scholars
disagree.[10] The Dictionary of Islam[1] and British-American orientalist
Bernard Lewis both argue jihad has a military meaning in the large majority of
cases.[11] Some scholars maintain non-violent ways to struggle against the
enemies of Islam. An example of this is written debate, often characterized as
"jihad of the pen".[12]
[…]
Within classical Islamic jurisprudence—the development of
which is to be dated into the first few centuries after the prophet's
death[31]—jihad is the only form of warfare permissible under Islamic law, and
may consist in wars against unbelievers, apostates, rebels, highway robbers and
dissenters renouncing the authority of Islam.[32] The primary aim of jihad as
warfare is not the conversion of non-Muslims to Islam by force, but rather the
expansion and defense of the Islamic state.[33][34] In later centuries,
especially in the course of the colonization of large parts of the Muslim
world, emphasis has been put on non-militant aspects of the jihad. Today, some
Muslim authors only recognize wars with the aim of territorial defense as well
as the defense of religious freedom as legitimate.[35]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad
You, on another thread (no reply) “Robert Cat...Teshuvot or Responsa or legal opinion....exactly what a fatwa is. A fatwa is a responsa from a mufti after being queried by a mustafti.
Religious Jews' responsas for ethics, etc. for adherents is not same as fatwa which can include forcing demands/punishments on other faiths/non faiths. Jews concerned with Jews (and safety from non-Jews); Mslms want force agenda on world. Mslms, as a whole, feel superior to non-Mslms, are especially upset non-Mslms won't change beliefs to follow Islm ("final/only true word). Not so with all of Jews. Some Jews don't "believe."
Example: Mslm claimed 10-Commandments were Sh'ra law. Everyone knows Jews "chosen" by G-d to receive/guard/protect Ark of Covenant/10 Commandments. If Shr'a adopted these Commandments, not giving credit to Jews is dishonest. Example: your interpretation of Jewish words. Islm has taken much of Judaism/Christianity as own. Doesn't mean Sh'ra's interpretations correct, or how Jews/Christians meant. Yours is religion of reinterpretation. To think only Islm can have proper interpretation of other religions for own use is plagiarism.
Jews have "w ar" theory like Jihad? Don't think so. After Canaan, thousands-yrs. ago, Jews aren't looking for territory. Jews don't proselytize or desire to conquer world to spread religion, as does Islm.
Before claiming Jan is deceptive, look to your own house.
I know some Christians have been murdered in some Muslim-majority countries by some Muslim extremists .... but you make it sound like a general trend.
Tell Hindus they are being Islamophobic.
Pakistan minorities flee 'religious persecution'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDqZJjfVfrk&playnext=1&list=PLD99453DE9F670D92&feature=results_main
Tell Ahmadiyas they are being Islamophobic.
PERSECUTION OF AHMADIYAS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZn5D4H1oVc
Tell apostates they are being Islamophobic.
islam penalty for apostasy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XRCYlZ4XOQ
Tell LGBT they are being Islamophobic.
Gay activists kiss in front of Islamic fanatics at 2012 Global Atheist Convention
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9X6bzVVxe3c
Tell the slaves they are being Islamophobic.
Slavery in Sudan alive and well CNN
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOPD7_SCFNA&feature=player_embedded
Bob Beckel having a momentary lapse into sanity
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMgy_kTl1l4&feature=player_embedded#!
Today, I am going to a Sikh temple to experience a religion i know nothing about. Starts in 2 hours, lasts for 3 hours. I am nervous, and looking forward to it.
I've been to a lot of religion's services, but never to a Sikh service, though I have participated in Sikh kirtan (chanting / singing) which was very cool; Sikhs in general seem to be very fun and kind-hearted.
The goal: Experience a religion you have never experienced.
When we arrived, they were in the middle of a long prayer/song which went on for an hour and a half, while we were served some delicious food. Then they brought over an English speaker to help answer some questions.
While it was hard not to notice the females separated from the men, it didn't detract from the environment. The prayers were centered on god blessing the people with kindness and love.
They had amazing live Kirtan chanting and music that sounded like Azam Ali/Niyaz meets Krishna Das. They read their holy book for about 30 minutes and more music! The whole group was in like a hippie circle on kumbaya.
To conclude, everyone went into the basement for some wonderful cuisine I thoroughly enjoyed. I conducted myself with respect, didn't ask anything about why their women are separated, and didn't let myself get intimidated by their different proxemics. (how close they sit when talking to you, for instance).
I am glad I went, and have no regrets. The "vibe" of the place was warm and the people were wonderful. This might be my best essay yet. My friend from Pakistan also seemed to enjoy himself.
They chant and pray to their Godzillas whom do you chant for a Godzilla too?
According to you, you don't believe inAllah or any of his prophets, why are you then adopting and deafening a specific religion? Isn't religion a man made doctrine, a fallacy by itself?
Here is some real chanting of real atheist, it looks nothing like yours.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCfwcd_Ajg4
In the recent elections, we have seen how a majority of Egyptians prefer Islamic theocracy to secular liberal democracy. It would therefore not be surprising if, among our Egyptian immigrants, some also would prefer Islamic theocracy to the present U.S. government. Muslims who, given sufficient political power, would elect the Muslim Brotherhood should not be welcome as citizens.
My question: How do we know which Muslim immigrants to welcome and which to be wary of?
Pay some attention, generally?
How many people, from any ethnic origin, race, or any other general qualities have you found to be problem?
I'll always presume anyone is well-intentioned, generally-speaking, unless and until they indicate otherwise.
I haven't gone wrong with that approach, yet.
Religion, on the other hand is an indicator of ideology, and a certain percentage of the adherents of certain religions maintain radical views. (Unless you reject the results of the Pew surveys, for which evidence of their inaccuracy would be necessary.)
It is not easy to learn about a person's radical views. Most people are not so dense that they don't realize that radical views are not welcome in the U.S. This is why anonymous surveys probably produce better results than getting to know people. I am sure that Osama bin Laden was polite and friendly to guests--though I doubt he would have participated in the Pew survey.
It is a statistical likelihood that you have met Muslims with radical views. Why do you think they would communicate these to you? Radical views are much more likely to be found in an anonymous setting. You have probably noted the radical viewpoints of some Muslims who post here, for instance.
The proponents of any ideology that opposes our constitutional rights bear watching. We do not need another anti-secular minority gaining a political foothold in this country. Failing to criticize such views out of a false and damaging deference to religion is unwise.
Tolerance ends when it is defined as the acceptance of intolerance.
A. Tolerance is good.
B. Intolerance is bad.
Thus, liberals are intolerant of something; intolerance. How to resolve the paradox?
A. Being healthy is good.
B. Starving is unhealthy.
Thus, we oppose "not starving" to promote healthiness.
This allusion demonstrates that being "intolerant of intolerance" is not a social paradox of liberalism, but instead a survival mechanism. After all, how tolerant can a black person be of the KKK wanting free speech to burn crosses in his yard and call him the N word?
Tolerance ends, as you said, when it is defined as being told to accept something that is destructive and toxic.