Violence in the Muslim World: Cause and Effect.

I'm re-posting an excellent article I read that explains in detail the recent violent reactions to the nasty piece of work (short film in the US) about Prophet Muhammad. It's a long read but if you really want to understand why so many Muslims in the west feel discriminated against and marginalized by society... read on.

CounterPunch

September 17, 2012

When Violence Feeds on Violence

The Cycle of Hate, Anger, Violence and Counter-Violence

by RAOUF J. HALABY

Even though the details about the producer of a 13 minute film about the life of the Prophet Muhammad are vague, the film has ignited a firestorm of protests and anger in North Africa, the Near East, and Central Asia. Alleged to be a Los Angeles Copt of Egyptian background, Sam Bacile (believed to be an alias for Nakoula Bassily Nakoula) has produced a despicable film that has not only drawn on every imaginable Muslim stereotype, but it has also indulged in hate speech and the vilification of the youngest of the Abrahamic faiths.

In a series of disjointed and non-sequential scenes and through an assortment of bizarre characters who interact with the Prophet, Bacile’s first scene establishes the following: The Prophet has 61 wives and girlfriends; he is depicted as a disheveled Neanderthal; he is sitting outside a tent in a desert-like setting; he is wildly grasping onto a large bone, wolfing down large chunks of stringy meat; and he is repeatedly described as a bastard. In the second scene the Prophet is asked to go into a tent where a seated woman (with widespread legs and thighs completely exposed) who first tells him that, because he has no underwear, he needs to be modest. Soon she tells him: “I command you. Sit down and put your head between my thighs,” something he lasciviously obliges.

To enhance the negative stereotype, a series of close-ups and cropped scenes depict Muslims in the vilest manner. They have ugly teeth, long, stringy beards, their robes are filthy; they brandish bloody swords in every scene, they sell children into slavery so as buy weapons, they are good at looting, and threaten their captives with “extortion or death;” they claim that “every non-Muslim is an infidel” and their “lands, their women, their children are our spoils.” The Prophet is portrayed as “a child molester,” a gay man, “a murderous thug,” and a lascivious character who “forces himself on women.” In the last few scenes the Prophet is represented as a serial sex fiend/rapist who derives pleasure from seeing an old woman whose legs are torn asunder by two camels walking in opposite directions. For a virulently racist finale, the final scene depicts the execution of a young captive tied to a pole – a sword dripping with blood is shown behind the man’s back and above his head.

Last week the reaction in the Muslim world was swift, bloody, and very messy. From Morocco, North Africa’s most Western Muslim country, to Sudan, Egypt, Iraq and as far as Central Asia, Muslims have reacted with fury. And, ironically, in Tunisia and Egypt, two so-called Arab Springers, the US embassies were attacked and firebombed.

The unkindest cut of all occurred in Libya, a country Ob-illary/Sarkozy/Cameron/Merkel/Berlusconi team bombed into yet another iffy Arab Spring; cowardly revenge was exacted on four innocent American men. Sarkozy lost his re-election bid and Obama, in a fight for his re-election, sent two naval ships to Libya.The heinous killing of US Ambassador Christopher Stephens and embassy employees Glen Doherty, Sean Smith, and Tyrone Woods is a barbaric crime that should be criticized by everyone, especially folks in the Arab world.

So should the slaughter of tens of thousands of Arab civilians.

The abhorrent and cold-blooded murder is a blatant violation of Bedouin/Arab codes that predate Islam and are enshrined in the Arab and Muslim traditions; these codes have been revered and practiced for centuries. Generosity and hospitality are valued and honored as sacrosanct social norms of conduct that govern one’s interactions with family, friends, guests and the extended community. This code stipulates that a guest, even a stranger, must be honored, respected, and protected. By committing this dastardly deed, the killers have not only committed an egregious crime and violated a sacred code, but they have also helped reinforce all the negative stereotypes and myths that have become a well-organized and well-funded cottage industry of virulent anti-Muslim xenophobia in the U.S. and Europe.

Politicians, self-styled preachers, pundits, and pseudo scholars have exploited the 9/11 tragedy to promote their agendas. And all the recent rhetorical platitudes about the Arab Spring are phony; pandering politicians and partisan pundits, and especially a media that has gone AWOL, have clearly demonstrated that they have a superficial understanding of the root causes of the deep resentment the Arab and Muslim worlds harbor towards the West. And a failed Ob-illary Drone/capitulation-to-Netanyahu and a cozy friendship with the Dictators-for-Life Arab potentates approach to the current failed Foreign Policy have not helped.

And God help us if the trigger-happy Mitt/Ryan team is elected come November.

From Morocco to the west and as far as Bangladesh to the east, indigenous populations harbor deep resentment towards British, French, and Italian colonial rule, a domination that was characterized by brutal suppression; for well over a century now exploiting the natural resources and geo-strategic control trumped everything.

The post 1917 dicing, slicing and redrawing of geographical boundaries by Britain and France (especially in Palestine, Greater Syria, Turkey, Kurdistan, Iraq and Pakistan) without regard to historic, national and ethic sensitivities was a serious mistake for which the region and the rest of the world are paying even to this day;

Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Kurdistan, and Iraq have borne the brunt of this meddling.

Since the early 1950’s North Africa and the Near East have exchanged the European tyrannical yokes for equally brutal indigenous tyrannical yokes. Many of today’s tyrants hide behind religion and the Palestinian Nakba to suppress their populations. And since the 1950’s the peoples of the region have been living under the tyranny of two yokes; regional dictators and their western oil-addicted bedfellows have struck a Faustian compact to maintain a steady flow of the black gold.

When Mel Gibson’s film The Passion of the Christ was released in 2004, many in the Christian community voiced their disbelief and anger at what they perceived to be an affront to Christianity, and leading Jewish organizations voiced their concerns about the age-old libel charge.

In his collage The Holy Virgin Mary, Chris Ofili mixed elephant dung and dead animals to create an image of the Virgin, a medium that elicited a very strong reaction by leading Catholic figures. Rudy Giuliani ‘s 1999 attempts to punish (funding and legal proceedings) the Brooklyn Art Museum ended in a draw. Mapplethorpe’s all too explicitly homoerotic photographs were lambasted, and attempts to prosecute the Cincinnati Contemporary Art Center failed. Piss Christ, a 1987 photograph by Andrea Serrano, raised the ire of Christians, especially Catholics, and politicians. The artist placed a plastic crucifix in a vial containing his urine; Jessie Helms threatened to withhold funding from the National Endowment for the Arts.

 Free speech won the day for Ofili and Serrano. However, Serrano’s photograph was met with stronger reactions in other climes; in Australia the photograph was vandalized, and on Palm Sunday 2011 angry protesters forced their way into a gallery in Avignon, France, and destroyed the composition with hammers. In his re-election bid for the French presidency, Sarkozy attempted to make political hay by siding with the demonstrators.

In 2004 film maker, writer and critic Theo van Gogh collaborated with Somali-born Dutch citizen Ayan Hirsi to produce an eleven minute film under the title Submission. Instead of producing a statement on the status of women in Muslim societies, the film employed some of the worst Muslim and Arab stock stereotyping that included a scene on arranged marriages, a scene on the flogging of women, and a pernicious scene on the molestation of a girl by a relative. The scenes were presented as routine denigration and molestation of women in Muslim societies.

It is analogous to judging American society by the reprehensible child molestation of children by Catholic priests and the likes of Jerry Sandusky? Prior to the film’s release, Van Gogh’s anti-immigrant sentiments had been duly noted in print and public forums. In late 2004 Van Gogh was senselessly murdered by a Dutch Moroccan, and in November of that year there were 106 anti-Muslim retaliatory attacks on mosques and Muslims in Holland. Subsequent parliamentary discussions on blasphemy laws (against Jews, Christians and Muslims) got nowhere.

In 2005 the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Politikenpublished several cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad in less than flattering terms, and one cartoon in particular depicted the Prophet with a turban in the shape of a bomb. At the same time the newspaper refused to publish anti-Christian and anti-Jewish cartoons drawn by Danish artists. Demonstrations and protests in Denmark and across Europe and the Middle East (some of which turned violent and bloody) hardened European resolve and German, Swedish, French and Belgian newspapers printed the same cartoons.

And threats of economic boycotts of Danish goods prompted Danish Prime Minister Anders Rasmussen to state that this was Denmark’s worst crisis since WWII. I am of the opinion that the fault lines in Europe’s economic woes were by then becoming more apparent, and the tendency to use immigrants as scapegoats for economic problems added fuel to the xenophobic sentiments that had begun to sweep through Europe. This, combined with violent demonstrations in Europe and the Muslim worlds, served as a wedge issue in what can be best described as the new cultural wars. Because Muslim immigrants, by and large, are concentrated in ghettoized neighborhoods, the process of assimilation (through education and employment) in the fabric of European societies is slow.

Marginalized economically, socially and politically, and told (through legislation) that their women could not wear the traditional head scarves, European Muslims, angry, alienated, and having the welcome rug pulled from under their feet, have found solace and comforting affinities in the social and religious support they find in their own ethnic enclaves, the Little Pakistans, Little Moroccos, and Little Iraqs.

While free speech won the day in Denmark and across Europe, it did nothing to mend the fault line of mistrust that has alienated white Europeans and their Muslim minorities. Many Muslims rightfully have posed the following question: Why is it that many European countries have passed laws prohibiting anyone from denying the Holocaust — even to the extent of prosecuting and imprisoning those who utter the rabid denial? And why are public figures and the media allowed to denigrate the Prophet and Islam by resorting to virulent images and hateful narratives? Why is one prosecuted for voicing an opinion and the other given a pass under the guise and protection of free speech? Are the two not equally abhorrent? And finally, why is it that the European Forum on Anti-Semitism has remained silent when the religion of millions of Semitic Muslims is vilified?

Those who think that military might and billion-dollar bribes in the form of foreign aid are going to change the deep seated resentment towards the US and the West are wrong. Besides, we’ve seen the poor return on the military adventures in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, and how the foreign aid with which we, the taxpayers of this country entrust our leaders, goes into tyrants’ Swiss accounts and regional military adventures.

George Bush’s answer to his own question about “Why do they hate us?” was answered with a bloody war that pulverized Iraq back to the stone age and brought us to the brink of financial disaster.

It would take several volumes to expound on “Why do they hate us?” To put it succinctly, the digital technology has pulled the drape on two sore spots that feed into the anguish and humiliation that plague the Muslim and Arab worlds. And it is through these two prisms that the Muslim masses filter regional and international events and policies.

In Israel and the occupied territories mosques and Korans are burned and defiled, Muslim cemeteries are bulldozed (as in the case of the 7^th century Mamila cemetery which was leveled and over 7,000 thousand graves were desecrated and dug up so as to build, of all things, a Simon Wiesenthal Center of Tolerance). Palestinians are being ethnically cleansed in a perniciously systematic peristaltic manner, and natural resources are stolen from their rightful owners. Only two weeks ago Jewish settlers broke into the compound of a Catholic monastery and defaced the walls with graffiti; “Jesus is a monkey” said one phrase.

To their credit, a handful of Israelis apologized and made amends. That Netanyahu is holding Obama, Romney, and the US Congress at bay, and that he is weekly threatening to bomb Iran leaves the folks in that region of the world in fear of yet another senseless war, and it seems to me that these violent reactions should also be seen as a painful cry by the masses of the region: We’re tired of war!!! Enough is enough, not in my neighborhood, not no more.

The second and equally important prism has to do with a fractious Arab world of haves and have nots,

both of which are ruled by corrupt tyrants. Muslim Malaysian, Bangladeshi, and Indonesian nationals who toil in indentured servitude in the oil rich Gulf countries resent the manner in which they are treated. And the sloshy oil rich rulers are expending fortunes to stay in power. And because of the West’s insatiable addiction to oil, these potentates muscle Washington into abeyance. In a quid pro quo clutch they’ve become surrogates for military intervention (Libya and Syria are cases in point); how ironic, while Saudi Arabia and Qatar have supported the Libyan uprisings, they have denied the minorities in their midst the same freedom. And finally, there is a history of brutal assaults etched in the minds of Near Easterners.

The British meddling in Iran and Iraq which dates to the 1920’s when Churchill dropped ton after ton of mustard gas on Iraqi civilians, a violation that was repeated with guided missiles in the last decade during which tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians were killed, maimed, or humiliated in the infamous Abu Ghreibs that sprouted in Iraq and Afghanistan. And there are lingering memories of US outsourced torture in Egypt, Syria, and Jordan. One can only hope that should Obama get re-elected, he would change the course of US foreign policy. We need to make friends with the masses, and not those who rule them.

By all accounts Ambassador Stephens loved the people of the region. He spoke their language, he understood their culture, and he was trying to help Libyans forge their way out of chaos and into a democratic future. He was a guest in Libya, and he should have been treated as such and accorded protection.

Is it not time for sane Jews, sane Christians, and sane Muslims to sit down for a serious discussion about peace and harmony?

Raouf J. Halaby is a Palestinian from Jerusalem and a naturalized US citizen. He is a Professor of English and Art at a private liberal arts university in Arkansas.halabyr@obu.edu

Niqab and Burqa Discrimination

In lieu of the previous blog, I decided to post a Journal Entry I submitted for my International Business class last year:

I walked into class late again because of Bagley construction and traffic to catch the end of the discussion taking place in class. It seemed to be regarding discrimination in France against Muslim women who wear the niqab or burqa (the only difference between the two is that a woman’s eyes show in the niqab but the burqa is a full body cover including the eyes). This issue is not new to me; I have heard it being discussed many times on TV, in the newspapers, in case studies and in political science as well as sociology classes amongst other places. I have mixed feelings about this form of discrimination.

Most Muslims believe that wearing the niqab or burqa is religiously optional (sunnah) whereas some conservative Muslims believe it is religiously required (fard). Personally, I fall in line with mainstream Islam and believe it is optional. Jordan has many women who wear niqab. It also has many women such as myself who wear the hijab, even more women who don’t wear either and women who wear short-shorts and tank tops. In terms of religiosity, Jordan is pretty diverse. So needless to say, growing up I have met many Muslim women who wear niqab.

When I was younger, I used to view the niqab and burqa as a tradition of the VERY religious. I viewed those who wore it as being backward, uneducated and overtly zealous in their beliefs and practices. I also believed that those who chose to wear it in non-Muslim or non-Islamic societies cause more damage than good and resented the image they presented of Islam. Sadly, I never realized how westernized my analysis was of this practice until I came to the U.S. in 2006.

Since moving to the U.S., I knew that by following my religious beliefs and expressing my faith visually by wearing the hijab (scarf covering my hair) I would subject myself to questions one way or another. I rarely ever received hostile questions, accusations, rude remarks or dirty looks for that matter -as some of my friends and acquaintances have over the years- but rather found that the majority of the questions posed to me were out of curiosity and a desire to learn. Side note: this could be due to the fact that I am a student and most of my interactions take place in an academic setting but I’m not entirely sheltered in that sense and obviously go out on the town and travel often but again, most of the environments I’m in are either educational or diversified.

I was not a very religious person at the time (and I still have a ways to go) but wearing the hijab was and still is a part of who I am, a part of my identity. I never had any intention of giving that up regardless of how people reacted to me… even if it negatively impacted my educational experience or career opportunities. It was only then that I realized how wrong I was in drawing the image that I did of these Muslim women who are choosing to practice their interpretation of our faith, whether or not they believed wearing it to be optional or obligatory, in spite of the stereotypes, sentiments and sensitivities surrounding their attire.

See, they are me… except different. They are normal, every day women with a wide-range of personalities, histories and lifestyles who happen to passionately believe in something that they hold dear to their heart and desire to practice that belief regardless of where they are or how severe the consequences. I used to consider myself a rather open-minded individual until I realized that even though I rarely ever discriminate against people of a different ethnic, cultural or religious background, I sure did discriminate against people of my own faith.

In a sense, this experience has helped me realize that I was experiencing a different kind of ethnocentrism, a sneaky kind that allowed me to believe that I had the right to discriminate against others simply because we shared a common religious background and judge them based on my own beliefs.  Something I highly doubt I would have come to understand, accept and change about myself should I have stayed in Jordan and not been exposed to a similar thought process to their own (assuming).

People should not be judged on how they dress or what they believe in when it comes to work. I believe that the most efficient business is the one that hires people for their business ideas, their contributions to the company, work ethic and how they fit in with the company’s culture. Yes I can understand some of the concerns employers may have about potentially hiring someone whose face they haven’t even seen but isn’t that the way most online business and transactions occur these days? Is success of work performance really measured on appearance rather than work performance and output? And what better way to diversify a company’s culture and encourage inter-religious and inter-cultural understanding than introducing a team member who is seemingly different on the outside but turns out to be very much the same personality-wise? I get mixed reactions but I rarely ever have problems because I usually relate really well to people (I hope!). Once my humanity comes through and others understand I’m not “that” different from them, it opens many doors to understanding and sharing of ideas, experiences I wouldn’t trade for the world and have forever shaped my views on a wide-range of topics.

Everyone should have the freedom to make their on choices and have the right to choose their own lifestyle, to create their own reality and live as they please as long as they do not harm others in their quest for personal freedom. As a feminist and as a human rights activist, I say no one has the right to tell these women how to live, how to practice their beliefs and what choices they are allowed to make based on others perspectives of them. That in itself is the essence of the very oppression we all reject for ourselves and loved ones.

“The will of the people is the only legitimate foundation of any government, and to protect its free expression should be our first object.”- Thomas Jefferson

“The unity of freedom has never relied on uniformity of opinion” and “Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth.” -John F. Kennedy

“For to be free is not merely to cast off one's chains, but to live in away that respects and enhances the freedom of others.” -Nelson Mandela

“Honest differences are often a healthy sign of progress”, “I want freedom for the full expression of my personality” and “One needs to be slow to form convictions, but once formed they must be defended against the heaviest odds” –Mahatma Ghandi

Keep Your Thoughts Off My Body

Although I created this account a long time ago -so long that I can't remember when I started it- with the hopes of motivating myself to start writing, it wasn't until this morning when I saw the below shown picture that I felt motivated enough to get started and write this piece.

Over the years, I've heard time and again the same anti-Muslim propaganda.  I'm sure you all have. It's hard to escape it when you constantly hear it on the news, it's always discussed on online forums, it's re-iterated by Western politicians, and reaffirmed by "Muslim" extremists. Words like "burqa", "jihad", and "Shariah" are always tossed around as if they were the equivalent in meaning to dark ages, fall of civilizations, terrorism and death and destruction, and all else that is dark and scary.

Let's tackle the issue of Muslim women's rights since it's so easy for those outside the hemisphere of Islam to believe that us Muslim women are oppressed.

My name is Sabreen, I was born a Muslim and I practice my faith on a daily basis. I wear hijab and one day I aspire to look like the women in the 3rd picture but even if I don't, I respect women's choices to dress as they see fit. I do not believe a burqa is obligatory as nothing in the Qur'an or Hadith says it is. However, should women decide to wear it so they may feel closer to God and prefer not to be objectified by men in any way, then that is their choice, not yours or his or hers, or the media, or politicians or anyone else for that matter. It is HERS and hers alone. Religiously we are required to dress modestly and we choose how to express that modest attire.

I am a feminist to the core, I cover my hair and body and I choose to do so. If I decided to take it off, my family would be disappointed in my choice to unveil myself in front of men who aren't family (women can see us without it, it is only in the presence of men who aren't related to us that we cover) but they will not turn into out-of-control vicious murderers as bigots like to believe.

I recognize the artistic nature of this picture but I resent its meaning, or at least my interpretation of its meaning. To me this picture says that the women or their identities are disappearing with time or with more levels of clothing. The smile fades on the mother in the first four pictures and then she is "hidden" behind the veil. It keeps getting worse until mother and daughter no longer exist.

I am treated with respect, love and dignity. My husband treats me like a queen. My body, my shape, my beauty is not for sale, it is not for men to review or evaluate, to rate or judge, to objectify or degrade.  Women can see me as I am but men who aren't related to me cannot. I prefer not to give men I do not know an opportunity to check me out or to look at me in any other way than the person standing in front of them. Period.  How is this different in concept from all the men and women who save themselves for marriage, staying virgins so they can share the experience with the only person who matters, their life partner? I understand and submit to the reasons for wearing it but even if I didn't, I would wear it for the only entity worth listening to, the one above us all. God (Allah in Arabic) knows best.

To all you judgmental people out there, let me tell you something: What you might consider oppression, I consider freedom. What you consider degrading, I consider being held in high regard. What you consider control, I consider personal choice. What you consider devalued, I consider respect and admiration. France, Italy and all other hijab/burqa-banning entities... my choice is not your decision to make.

The hijab doesn't squander my personality or extinguish my identity. It empowers me, it humbles me, it forms my identity, it is me. So let me be me.

P.S. I am not naive, ignorant, living in a bubble, delusional, brainwashed, I'm not an exception to the rule, pretending to be liberated or any of the other justifications you may convince yourself of in order to continue dehumanizing me or the men in my life who have nothing to do with my choices. Accept it for what it is... a way of life.

I'm all for discussion but if you do not want to discuss things in a respectful manner, I will not engage you, respond to you or allow your comment to be posted. Feel free to ask or comment as you please whether you agree or disagree but just be decent and respectful or otherwise don't bother.