Mediated Racism: Orientalism, Birtherism and the Muslim Community Center

Thursday 09 September 2010

by: Anthony DiMaggio, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed

Mediated Racism: Orientalism, Birtherism and the Muslim Community Center
Woman protests The Cordoba House on Sunday, August 22, 2010. (Photo: david_shankbone)

Anti-Obama conspiracy theories have gone viral in right-wing peer groups and within right-wing media outlets. The opposition to Obama is reaching crisis proportions. Just one third of Americans can correctly identify Obama's religion as Christian. Forty three percent don't know what his religion is, and 18 percent actively believe he is a Muslim, according to a new Pew Research Center survey. [1]

Public opinion on race and religion-related issues has deteriorated significantly in the last two years. While 34 percent think Obama's a Christian, that number represents a decline of 13 percent since March 2008. Feelings that he is Muslim have increased by six percent in that time as well, while uncertainty about his religion has increased by seven percent. In many ways, uncertainty about Obama's religion is just as disturbing as the conclusion that he's a Muslim. It's a major accomplishment for religious bigots that nearly 61 percent of Americans believe Obama's either a Muslim or that he may not be Christian. [2]

Much of this opposition is likely based upon a number of factors. One explanation is the stoking of public racism in the "Ground Zero" Muslim "mosque" fiasco, in which the American right has mobilized to try and create public opposition to the creation of an Islamic community center a few blocks from Ground Zero. The campaign was always fanatical and racist in orientation, but it has won a number of converts in a country that has long held irrational views of the foreign, dangerous "other."

Obama likely made himself a target of the racist segments of the populace when he recently defended the Constitutional right of the proponents of the community center to build their facility near Ground Zero (neither he nor any other prominence Democrats have defended the actual choice to build the community center near Ground Zero, by the way). Polling finds that a majority of Americans - 85 percent - have been following the New York community center "controversy."[3] A majority of Americans disapprove of the community center, with 61 percent opposed to its construction, according to a recent poll reported on by Time magazine. That same poll finds that 70 percent think it would be "an insult" to those who died on 9/11. [4]

Time finds that opposition to the community center is clearly driven to a large extent by open racism against Muslim Americans. Twenty-eight percent of voters don't think Muslims "should be eligible to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court." Around one-third believe "adherents to Islam should be barred from running for president." [5] An ABC/Washington Post poll shows that nearly four in ten Americans admit to having an "unfavorable opinion of Islam." Much of this is likely related to public ignorance, as 55 percent admit that they "feel [they] do not have a good basic understanding of the teachings and beliefs of Islam." Nearly six in ten admit they don't personally know anyone of Muslim descent. [6]

Another major source of opposition likely comes from right-wing media. Reactionary pundits like Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage - among many others - have taken to repeatedly attacking Obama as "Barack Hussein Obama." The attack is obviously intended to emphasize Obama's "foreign sounding" name. Little else explains the practice of spelling out Obama's entire name; how many on the left, after all, attacked Bush by repeating "George Walker Bush," slowly, over and over, in a condescending tone and expecting a negative public reaction to his name?

Prolonged media attention to the "birther" conspiracy and framing of Obama as a Marxist or socialist are also integrally related to construction of Obama as the brown, foreign, religious fanatic other. A Lexis Nexis search of the terms "Obama" and "birth certificate" from January through December 2009 finds nearly three dozen programs on the topic run on Fox News, or an average of nearly three per month. Similarly, a search of "Obama" and "Marxism" finds nearly three dozen Fox stories, while a search of "Obama" and "socialism" finds more than 300 stories.

Reporting of Manhattan's proposed Muslim community center has also been characterized by blatant misinformation and racism. By now, most should be familiar with the incendiary and hatred-filled attacks of right-wing pundits such as Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, and Sean Hannity. These figures seek to create analogies between the establishment of the community center and Nazism, KKK southern segregationist violence and lynching, and Japanese aggression at Pearl Harbor, among other ominous comparisons. The "objective" press has not fared all that much better. While news outlets like the New York Times have editorially condemned the racist fear mongering driving opposition to the community center, the outlet (among others) has played into conservative hands by actively misreporting the details of the issue at hand. A Lexis Nexis news database search for August finds that the New York Times and Washington Post reported 56 and 53 stories respectively including discussion of the "Ground Zero" "mosque." In comparison, just 22 stories at the Times and 11 at the Post discussed the controversy as revolving around the proposal of a "Muslim community center." In other words, frames that actively misinformed the public were between two to five times more prevalent in the allegedly "liberal" elite press.

Click here to get Truthout stories like this one sent straight to your inbox, 365 days a year.

Media-induced misinformation and racism are accompanied by serious consequences when we examine the state of American public opinion. Nearly half of Americans think "Islam encourages violence," while the public is twice as likely to associate the Islamic religion as comprised of "fanatics," as "radical," or as "terrorist" than they are to characterize the religion as including "devout," "peaceful," or "dedicated" followers. [7]

What are the major causes of this racism? My own statistical analysis of public opinion polling finds that racist views are most likely to be held by specific demographic groups, including: conservatives, Protestants, Republicans, whites, and older Americans. After controlling for these demographic variables, however, three other vital factors also explain racist views: lower levels of education, the lack of acquaintance or friendship with a Muslim, and increased reliance on the mass media for one's information about Islam. [8]

As causes of public ignorance and racism, the lack of education and extensive reliance on the mass media for racist cues would not have surprised the late Edward Said, who chastised America's "Orientalist" media and political culture, which fails to distinguish between Islam as a religion, Arabic as a language, and "brown" as a skin color. [9] All three qualities are often lumped together in the public mind as part of a distinct "other," which is often seen as representing a monolithic threat to American cultural identity and national security.

Of course, Orientalist stereotypes are the product of individual irrationality, bigotry, and racism, rather than objective reality. Global public opinion polls find that the vast majority of those throughout the Muslim world reject the idea that they are involved in a religiously inspired "clash of the civilizations" with the West and reject the use of terrorism. [10] While Muslims reject the notion of culture war, they perceive U.S. foreign policy and domestic political culture as driven by a hatred of Islam. Nearly eight in ten Muslims in countries surveyed feel that "the U.S. goal is to divide and weaken the Muslim world." [11] This conclusion is not all that surprising in light of the racist rhetoric driving U.S. domestic politics (a la the Muslim community center "controversy"). That perception should perhaps be expected when reflecting upon the (past) U.S. positioning of military bases in Saudi Arabia (home of Islam's most sacred city, Mecca), the longstanding U.S. occupation of Muslim countries, the dehumanizing behavior of U.S. troops at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib against Muslim prisoners (often undertaken explicitly in the name of offending the prisoners and their religion), the unconditional U.S. support for Israel and the Zionist declaration that Israel (a state in which one quarter of the population is not Jewish) is a "Jewish state," the polarizing binary rhetoric of the Bush administration stressing the "War on Terror" between "good and evil," the initial designation of this war as a crusade, and Bush's repeated religious references in later years to how God was "on his side" during these wars.

There was much celebration after the election of Obama of how the U.S. had "moved beyond race," and how this "fact" was allegedly proven by the emergence of our first African American president (no, Bill Clinton wasn't black, contrary to some silly portrayals). It turns out Americans were not as enlightened as they want to think, as the media-driven Islamic cultural center "controversy" demonstrates, and as the "Obama as a Muslim foreign threat" phenomenon indicates. Many Americans appear to be willingly manipulated in light of right-wing fear mongering and bigotry expressed against those who don't fit the White, Anglo-Saxon Protestant mold. Obama fits the Protestant part of the bill, but one wouldn't know this from the current uproar. If we learn anything from this chapter of American politics, it is that America still has a long way to go before it purges its reactionary, racist, and religiously inspired beliefs from the public vocabulary.

-----

End Notes

[1] Pew Research Center, "Growing Number of Americans Say Obama is a Muslim," Pew Research Center, 19 August 2010.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Rasmussen Reports, "Many More Now Following the Mosque Controversy, and Don't Like it," Rasmussen Reports, 23 August 2010.

[4] Alex Altman, "Majority Oppose Mosque, Many Distrust Muslims," Time, 19 August 2010.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Pollingreport.com, "Pew Research Center, August 19-22, 2010," Pollingreport.com.

[7] Pollingreport.com, "Time Poll, August 16-17, 2010), Pollingreport.com. ; Pew Research Center, "Public Expresses Mixed Views of Islam, Mormonism," Pew Research Center, 26 September 2007, http://pewforum.org/Public-Expresses-Mixed-Views-of-Islam-Mormonism.aspx

[8] My data is derived from a multivariate regression analysis of the hard data collected in the 2007 Pew Research poll referenced in endnote 7. The relationships between negative opinions of Islam on the one hand, and reliance on media, lack of education, and lack of acquaintance with a Muslim on the other, are all statistically significant after controlling for the demographic variables discussed within this article.

[9] For more on Orientalism and anti-Arab, anti-Muslim media stereotyping, see: Edward W. Said, Orientalism (New York: Vintage, 1994); Edward W. Said, Covering Islam: How the Media and the Experts Determine How We See the Rest of the World (New York: Vintage, 1997); Brigitte L. Nacos and Oscar Torres-Reyna, Fueling Our Fears: Stereotyping, Media Coverage, and Public Opinion of Muslim Americans (Lanham, Md.: Rowman and Littlefield, 2007); Yahya R. Kamalipour, ed. The U.S. Media and the Middle East: Image and Perception (Westport, Ct.: Praeger, 1997); Jack G. Shaheen, Reel Bad Arabs: How Hollywood Vilifies a People (Brooklyn, NY: Olive Branch Press, 2001); Karim H. Karim, Islamic Peril: Media and Global Violence (New York: Black Rose Books, 2003).

[10] Program on International Policy Attitudes, "Iranians and Americans Believe Islam and the West can Find Common Ground," WorldPublicOpinion.org, 30 January 2007. ; Program on International Policy Attitudes, "Iranians Overwhelmingly Reject Bin Laden," WorldPublicOpinion.org, 30 January 2007.; Program on International Policy Attitudes, "Large and Growing Number of Muslims Reject Terrorism, Bin Laden, WorldPublicOpinion.org, 30 June 2006. ; Steven Kull, "Internalizing the Clash of Civilizations," WorldPublicOpinion.org, 7 June 2010.

[11] Program on International Policy Attitudes, "Muslims Believe U.S. Seeks to Undermine Islam," WorldPublicOpinion.org, 24 April 2007.

This work by Truthout is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.

Comments

This forum is moderated by software. Please allow up to 15 minutes for your comments to go live and avoid posting the same comment multiple times.

Obama himself has implied

Thu, 09/09/2010 - 10:05 — Anonymous (not verified)

Obama himself has implied that Muslims are more prone to violence. He has asked for the Koran burning to be called off because "You could have serious violence in places like Pakistan and Afghanistan." What an insult to Muslims Obama is making! Here Muslims have been burning Bibles for years all around the world, and there has never been a violent response to this from Christians. In fact, I have not seen any serious violence from any religious group in response to the burning of a religious book. And so here Obama goes suggesting that Muslims just don't have the same maturity that other people do! He is suggesting Muslims simply can't control themselves when they are insulted! Any self-respecting Muslim would be outraged at this implication. Obama is obviously using coded language to convey that Muslims are "Not Like Us". He should go to sensitivity training to learn to treat "Foreign" people as equals and stop portraying them as the "Other".

Yes, what an Islamophobe

Thu, 09/09/2010 - 11:03 — Anonymous (not verified)

Yes, what an Islamophobe Obama is! Do you think he has such a low opinion of Muslims' ability to control their temper because he sees Muslims as "brown"?

As a disabled American, not

Thu, 09/09/2010 - 11:13 — Anonymous (not verified)

As a disabled American, not religious, I endure a lot of discrimination from Christians because I am "different". I think that it is time to write to the different levels of the religious sectors and voice our opinion regarding this issue.

And that is exactly what I am going to do starting with my the local churches in my area. We need to stop the churches from perpetuating their idea of non tolerance.

Remember when it was okay to discriminate against gays. Well, now they think that it is okay to discriminate against non-able bodied or Muslims. I am tired of it and I am going to use the pen to express my beliefs.

The current situation in the

Thu, 09/09/2010 - 11:31 — Anonymous (not verified)

The current situation in the world is that, generally speaking, many people are islamophobes who believe all Muslims want to fight violent wars until the world is under sharia. So I'm not sure Obama is so much implying anything, but he certainly is responding to the situation, which has roots dating back to the 9/11 bombing.

Look, there is this isolated event of some fundamentalist burning korans, and it has been brought to national attention by Fox News Corp and friends. I'm just glad it's not me making the decision, but I respect and understand Obama's decision here... although I certainly cannot forgive him for the illegal wars we're fighting that will continue to fuel this phobia well into the future, and make this issue somewhat irrelevant. (I suppose maybe he doesn't have a say in the foreign policy, or he's too scared and not willing to exercise it)

I see two things going on.

Thu, 09/09/2010 - 12:13 — Anonymous (not verified)

I see two things going on. One, the major media seem to be in a permanent election mode where their owners have a vested interest in removing the Dems from power. And two, the Republicans have offered nothing to make us want to vote for them. Therefore the media casts about for something that will distract, inflame and entertain the 'sheeple' while also casting the Dems in a bad light.

In previous elections the distraction was gays, and in this one the noise machine has finally found a bogus story that works for them: Muslims.

This is a test: Harnessing

Thu, 09/09/2010 - 14:04 — Anonymous (not verified)

This is a test:

Harnessing the expanding power of the Internet, we work to spread reliable information, critical thought and progressive ideas.

I happened upon this web

Thu, 09/09/2010 - 14:34 — Anonymous (not verified)

I happened upon this web site while checking out a book I'd heard about and was interested in possibly purchasing. That took me to BuzzFlash which brought me here.

After reading the 'About Us' section of 'truthout' and reading the following: ’Harnessing the expanding power of the Internet, we work to spread reliable information, critical thought and progressive ideas.’ I wondered if even though 'truthout' proudly boasts of being 'Progressive' it's writers might actually be CAPABLE of objective, unbiased reporting. After reading a small portion of this article I found my answer. That is a glaring NO. At least THIS author is NOT able to compose and report OBJECTIVELY.

Mr. DiMaggio your hatred and OBVIOUS disdain of Christians is bordering on hysteria. Your misguided article is far too bloated to address in its entirety. So let me be specific in just ONE paragraph, that being:
What are the major causes of this racism? My own statistical analysis of public opinion polling finds that racist views are most likely to be held by specific demographic groups, including: conservatives, Protestants, Republicans, whites, and older Americans. After controlling for these demographic variables, however, three other vital factors also explain racist views: lower levels of education, the lack of acquaintance or friendship with a Muslim, and increased reliance on the mass media for one's information about Islam.

So it’s ‘YOUR own’ statistical analysis that proves what the < em >major causes of racism are? What a pompous and over-blown opinion you have of yourself sir. You FAIL to mention the Americans of OTHER than WHITE conservative ‘demographics’ that abhor the ideal of allowing a mosque to be built so near Ground Zero. You skew your article in order to conform to your OWN hyper-inflated sense of self-importance. I accuse you of the same ‘hateful’ attitude you attribute to those who morally object to the presence of a mosque so near the worst attack on American soil in our long history.

And in doing so you have answered the question I had as to whether or not ‘truthout’ was actually < em >‘unbiased’ and < em >‘objective’ in its reporting. It’s obvious that there is at LEAST one completely < em >biased contributor and that sir is YOU.

I wouldn’t waste my time trying to find the ‘truth’ at this web site. If you are an example of the typical contributor to ‘truthout’ it would obviously be a practice in futility.

16:31, you say, "generally

Thu, 09/09/2010 - 15:07 — Anonymous (not verified)

16:31, you say, "generally speaking, many people are islamophobes who believe all Muslims want to fight violent wars until the world is under sharia." That's very interesting, because I don't believe I've heard anyone say such a thing. It would seem that almost no one is Islamophobic then.

Here are some statements. Do you think any of these statements are Islamophobic? If so, please be specific as to which statement you object to and why.

1. Probably about half or more Muslims worldwide want the world ultimately subjected to Sharia law. These Muslims can be called "Islamists". Amongst Muslims in this country, perhaps around 40% want laws in this country to be compatible with Sharia, although it's hard to say exactly. Not all but most of the Muslim leadership in this country is Islamist.

2. Of Islamists, some favor violent means and some favor non-violent means; of those who support violence, there are disagreements as to which situations call for violence; there are disagreements as to whether suicide bombing is allowable; however, the end goal is the same.

3. Sharia law is incompatible with the Constitution (e.g. laws against blasphemy, laws forbidding Muslims from changing their religion, etc.)

4. Near zero non-Muslims want to be subjected to Sharia law.

5. Therefore, a Muslim has a far greater chance of being in favor of Sharia than a non-Muslim.

6. Politicians are not always truthful about their beliefs and agendas. It is impossible to know their secret thoughts. If they hold unpopular opinions, they are likely to keep those to themselves.

7. Therefore, if an ambitious politician wanted Sharia law, he or she would probably keep it to him- or herself.

8. Therefore, if a voter wanted to have the best chance that a president did not secretly want to advance the goals of Sharia, it would be best to elect a president who has a non-Muslim faith, and a president who is highly unlikely to be a secret Muslim, and a president who does not hang out with Islamists, and a president who does not curry favor with Islamists.

9. Therefore, a voter who does not want Sharia law would likely hold a dim view of Obama's presidency.

10. A voter who opposes Obama's presidency for Sharia-related reasons may also know several Muslim and like them personally. He or she may also be aware of Muslims in the news that he or she finds admirable. He or she may agree with certain Muslims, particularly with committed secularists who do not want Sharia.

Ironic correlation- Thanks

Thu, 09/09/2010 - 17:37 — webfoot doug (not verified)

Ironic correlation-
Thanks to the biased media, only about 1/3 of Americans correctly know Obama is a Christian.

Thanks to the same biased media, only about 1/3 of the comments on this Dimaggio article have any understanding of the actual role of religion and politics in America-- the several "anonymous" comments (15.05, 16.03, 19,34, 20.7) are apparently written by devout followers of Fox TV and "Reverend" Jones himself.
A perfect pairing of hatred and ignorance.

22:37 If any comment in

Thu, 09/09/2010 - 18:08 — Anonymous (not verified)

22:37

If any comment in 20:07 is inaccurate as you imply, which statement, and why do you think it is inaccurate.

Anonymous 23:08-- Let's

Thu, 09/09/2010 - 20:05 — webfoot doug (not verified)

Anonymous 23:08--
Let's start with #1:
You have no evidence that 40% of American Muslims desire Sharia law here;
You have no evidence that the leaders of American Islam are Islamists who favor Sharia law.
You have not heard this from CAIR or other major American Islamic organizations.

I could go on, but as I am not a Muslim that is not my role to educate you.
Why don't you sit down with a real Muslim leader and learn some facts instead of repeating stereotypes?

At this time of turmoil over the Islamic cultural center planned for downtown New York, and Jones' planned Quran book-burning, America needs facts and good intentions, not malicious myths.

Are you one of the two-thirds of Americans who doesn't know our President is a Christian?

Well I guess it's a waste of

Thu, 09/09/2010 - 22:20 — benalbanach (not verified)

Well I guess it's a waste of time responding to ;

I happened upon this web
Thu, 09/09/2010 - 19:34 — Anonymous (not verified)
but hey...I've wasted time before and you never know,he might just be conceited enough to hang around to see if anyone reacted to his puffery.Later of course he'll go seek some site that encourages particular prejudice.
He is of course racist. Some brown-skinned guys from Saudi mentioned Allah when the Trade Centre was attacked and he takes the opportunity to tar whole races of Muslims.
He's of the same mindset as that twisted pastor who would burn the Koran.
For what it's worth Anonymous ,I follow no religion. But placing Christianity ahead of Islam,given their histories,smacks of ignorance of the highest order.

01:05: Yes, let's start with

Thu, 09/09/2010 - 23:26 — Anonymous (not verified)

01:05:

Yes, let's start with #1:

As I said, it is difficult to know for certain just how many American Muslims desire Sharia law here. 40% is a as good an estimate as any, however; it's probably between 30% and 50%. American polling companies are not making these questions a priority, even though there is a great deal of interest in them.

Here is some evidence: Different polls say 40% or 61% of British Muslims want Sharia in Britain (where they now have Sharia courts). Polls also say 81% of Detroit Muslims favor Sharia for Muslim countries. It defies logic to imagine they would not ever want it here. According to a report on Gallup polling, in all but a few countries around the world, a majority of Muslims want Sharia as at least "a" source of law. Given this evidence, which is of course scanty, I think 40% is a reasonable guess.

01:05: There is enough

There is enough evidence of the Islamist nature of American Muslim organizations to create a full-length article, but I'll give you a little here. ISNA is the very largest, and the president of the organization, Ingrid Mattson, is an Islamist. She regrets the end of the Caliphate and is a traditionalist on Sharia.

A 1991 internal memo of the Muslim Brotherhood shows they have a goal of "destroying the Western civilization from within". They are unquestionably Islamist. An attachment gives “a list of our organizations and the organizations of our friends” which includes "ISNA, MSA, AMSS, AMSE, NAIT, IFC, IPAC, IAP, UASR, ICNA (typo in the second listing) and IIIT".

A study (as yet unpublished) by Frank Gaffney’s Center for Security Policy indicates that about 80% of mosques in America preach Sharia and/or Jihad violence. Coincidentally, that's about the same percentage of mosques that receive Saudi funding.

As for whether I know Obama's religion, of course I don't, as I don't claim to have psychic powers. I suspect many politicians exaggerate their belief to Christianity to get votes. Tip O'Neill used to question Reagan's Christianity--evidently it was OK in those days to do so, as we don't hear about what a hater O'Neill was.

Let's stop calling

Fri, 09/10/2010 - 06:40 — Anonymous (not verified)

Let's stop calling anti-Muslim activists racists. They might or might not be racists but Muslims aren't a race and it just plays into the hands of the bigots to call them racists without evidence that they are that kind of bigots. They are xenophobes and bigots, isn't that enough? Let's save the term racists for those who are demonstrably racist and use some more accurate terms for Islamophobic xenophobes.

What The Hell Is

Fri, 09/10/2010 - 07:28 — Bill O'Rights (not verified)

What The Hell Is "Birtherism"? Is that when a citizen asks a political candidate to demonstrate their eligibility for office? There will be a large group of Natural Born US Citizens convening in Washington this Fall who will bring their Long Form Birth Certificate - the one with the signature of the physician or mid-wife who delivered the child - the one that is required ID for getting many jobs, and they will not be bringing a Certificate of Live Birth - they are not the same thing. O has spent over $1M to seal his records and to muddy the waters on this - it would be soooo easy to just get it over with and show the damned birth certificate. Listening to desperate denialists claiming that a newspaper announcement is some kind of proof of birthplace is an indication that they have no case. His Indonesian Citizenship is another issue altogether.

As for the Ground Zero Mosque - it's not even a Mosque, it's a community center. Me personally, I'd like to see the city donate a small parcel each for a plurality of religious traditions at GZ - as a demonstration of tolerance and coexistence. Now that would be constructive. Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Shinto, and Atheist - who am I leaving out? - all sharing the same park in the middle. That would be Revolutionary. That would be bitterly opposed by the Powers That Be, who require our division to control us.

There are really two

Fri, 09/10/2010 - 08:01 — Anonymous (not verified)

There are really two problems: The biased media is of course one. We seem to be powerless as a citizenry to combat CEO corporate media. We are simply out of the loop on that one.

The second problem requires a long term solution, which it may be too late to attempt. What kind of media consumer doesn't know how to fact-check or think for him/her self? Religious belief aside for a moment, how does one use the brain to figure out if other people's OPINIONS bear consideration? Even religious practice and beliefs could stand a little critical thinking but that's another story. When are we going to stop supporting a billion-dollar testing industry and teach our children, our teens, our college and university students to think?

Is it bigoted to object to

Fri, 09/10/2010 - 09:48 — Anonymous (not verified)

Is it bigoted to object to someone's politics? Because that is what anti-Islamists such as myself are objecting to. We do not care how anyone worships. However, we do care if they have an agenda for how they want to regulate society. Islamists want to impose Sharia on society. That is a political goal. Why should this be exempt from criticism? Do you think it is bigoted to criticize conservatism? If not, then anti-Islamists have every right to criticize Islamism as well.

Anonymous, what's your goal?

Fri, 09/10/2010 - 21:53 — Webfoot Doug (not verified)

Anonymous, what's your goal?

1.05, 14.48--What would you like to do, drive every moderate American Muslim in to the extremists' camp? If I were a Muslim and had to read your kind of hostility day after day, I'm afraid I wouldn't care much for this country either. While you have every right to criticize specific problems with Sharia law, you have no right to tar and feather the reputation of the many decent, moderate American Muslims.

Fortunately, you are in a minority in America, just as radical Islamists are also a minority here. In trying to equate American Muslims' support of Sharia with that of British Muslims, you make the classic mistake of assuming that here, where cultural assimilation has gone much deeper than in the UK, attitudes of separatism would be equally high.
In short, the main obstacle to Islamist radicalism here is America's long tradition of acceptance and assimilation of immigrants from all over the world.

Your goal is apparently to block this peaceful transition.
As far as your extremist charges about Ingrid Mattson and the ISNA, you can find their strong statements opposing terrorism and supporting pluralism on their web site. Please read it.

02:53 If you think speaking

Sat, 09/11/2010 - 00:26 — Anonymous (not verified)

02:53

If you think speaking the truth will "drive every moderate American Muslim in to the extremists' camp" (and note that you are the one making this claim, not I) then what does this tell you about Muslims' commitment to secularism and peace in the first place?

Specifically when have I tarred and feathered all Muslims?

No, my goal is to note the fact that Muslims themselves are blocking this peaceful transition. If Muslims are assimilating, then why do 81% of Detroit Muslims think Sharia is good in Muslim countries? (Note this means that as much as 19% of Detroit Muslims do not think Sharia is good in Muslim countries. So I have not "tarred and feathered" ALL Muslims. And besides, they are the ones responding to pollsters, so they would be tarring and feathering themselves, no?)

02:53 continued I have

Sat, 09/11/2010 - 00:27 — Anonymous (not verified)

02:53 continued

I have indeed looked at the ISNA website. They have a pretty good sales pitch. However, I'm not impressed. When ISNA starts actively promoting free speech, including the right to blaspheme, and freedom of religion, including the right to leave Islam, not only here but around the world, then I will be open to changing my mind about them.

On the ISNA website, they say they "[recognize] the validity of Islam’s different theological and legal schools". Legal schools? That's Sharia. ISNA's member organization, NAIT, says on their website, "NAIT facilitates the realization of American Muslims' desire for a virtuous and happy life in a Shari'ah-compliant way."

We should not be all excited about a version of Islam that is merely non-violent (at least for now). "Pluralism" is easy for them since there's nothing they can do about it here anyway, or at least not overnight. We should not be happy about any version of Islam that is not committed to living in a truly secular society, as equals with other religions, indefinitely, here and around the world, with no intention of ever instituting Sharia law, and with full freedom of speech and religion.

Now it's your turn to check out a website: AIFDemocracy.org , Zuhdi Jasser's organization. AIFD is a truly secular organization. Too bad it's so small.

the fundamental issue here

Sat, 09/11/2010 - 08:59 — McEachern (not verified)

the fundamental issue here should not be who practices what faith-based religion [a nimiety, given all religions are faith-based]. most religions seem divisive, therefore destructive to the solidification of the human family. rather the issue should be about what kind of a person one is, whether that person is a national leader like obama, or a teacher, or a carpenter, or a fisherman.

is s/he a humanitarian with a heart filled w/ charity, misericordia, compassion, honesty, lovingkindness, and courage in defense of the underdog? or is s/he a bigot, a racist, a mean-spirited xenophobic who dismisses others as tramontanes, based on such spurious grounds as 'they don't worship the same god i do' or 'they don't look like me, my family or my friends'... one's religious precepts, practices, rituals, predispositions [or absence thereof] are one's private business and should be relegated to the realm of personal spirituality, not to the ambit of a public forum.

if anyone's religion, agnosticism, or atheism redounds to nocent subreptions [i.e.injurious to others], then it is invalidated. if, on the other hand, one's religion or absence thereof [whether one is a nullifidian, a zulu pantheist, or a ba'hai] manifests itself in mercy, compassion, charity, and the acceptance of responsibility for those who are victimized, depauperate, diseased or distraught, then that religious/spiritual dynamic is self-validating. it is then a spiritual autopoiesis rather than a spirituality dictated by some human-conceived, maculating, monotheistic godhead who is forever sanctified by some group's 'holy book'.

the god regnant in the old testament is one whose salient traits are jealousy ['i am a jealous god; you will have no other gods before me'], intransigence, aggressiveness ['slay every man, woman, and child who does not worship me w/ thine own sword'], enmity, rapacity, and intractable xenophobia ['you are my chosen people; the rest be damned'].

the traits lauded, applauded, and glorified in the monotheistic religions of judaism, christianity, and islam have led to some of the most devastating incursions into brutality in our species' ignominious history... from the bloody crusades, to the torments of the inquisition, to the witch trials and flesh-carbonizing incendiaries on 'christian' stakes, to the jewish zionists' genocidal massacres of gazan, west bank, and refugee-camp palestinians in jordan, syria, and lebanon, to the war-mongering against the iraqis and afghans, to the christian hate-mongering against arab cultures. it defies understanding how these religions can claim to be the avatars of charity, cultural sensitivity, mercy, compassion, and largesse when they are so filled w/ enmity and the rejection of others who embrace a different spiritual path.

the point is that obama's spiritual life is a private and personal affair, the dynamics of which is nobody's business but his, no matter who his spiritual mentor is. obama has not been elected as a spiritual leader; his mantle is that of a political leader. his leadership would be egregiously compromised should he be seduced into becoming a hate-inculcating, fastuous, mouthpiece and xenophobic myrmidon of religion, ANY religion, no matter in what guise it appears.

the intent of most religions is to brainwash others into mimicking and amplifying their agenda, an agenda that too often includes aiming its most bigoted depredations against others in the human family.

02:53 You have claimed that

Sat, 09/11/2010 - 09:46 — Anonymous (not verified)

02:53 You have claimed that making measured statements, such as that I would guess about 40% of Muslims in America want Sharia, is "tarring and feathering" Muslims which could "drive every moderate American Muslim in to the extremists' camp." So then, how do you feel about statements that truly tar and feather all Republicans, such as claims that the GOP has a culture of racism? Do you feel that such blanket statements about conservatives could drive every moderate Republican into the "extremists' camp"?

If you do not believe that Republicans are as likely as American Muslims to be driven into the "extremists' camp" by criticism of their culture, then why not? It would seem that many liberals are taking this position, which means they must think American Muslims are more volatile and less committed to common American ideals than Republicans are. How would they get that idea?

If American Muslims are in fact "just like us" and no more prone to extremism than Republicans are, then it should be fine to criticize their culture just as Democrats criticize Republican culture (or their perception of it, anyway).

Please "get a

Sat, 09/11/2010 - 16:11 — webfoot doug (not verified)

Please "get a life"
Anonymous 5:26, 5.27, 14:46--your endless anti-Muslim rants are just getting boring.

To try to compare the "victimization" of our powerful, wealthy Republicans with that of our small, and often disrespected Muslim population is irrational.

In fact, it is the Democrats, not the Rs, who are daily attacked with outrageous slurs in right-wing talk shows, Limbaugh, Hannity, etc.
Racist Rs? Funny, while only 18% of Americans think our President is a Muslim, almost half of all Republicans think so.
Are these people Republicans because they are ignorant, or ignorant because they are Republicans?

As far as Muslims and Sharia, I've reviewed a lot of material put out by CAIR, the largest American Islamic civil rights organization, and not found a single mention of support for Sharia law. Your "surveys" are all wet.

In any case, the chance that our small and mostly moderate American Muslim population could force Sharia law on the rest of us is less likely than our getting hit by a world-destroying meteor.
Get a life.
And good-bye.
Webfoot Doug

21:11 You say CAIR

Sat, 09/11/2010 - 18:37 — Anonymous (not verified)

21:11

You say CAIR literature does not mention Sharia law. How naive. They know they aren't going to advance their "victimhood" agenda very far if they openly promote Sharia.

CAIR's spokesman Ibrahim Hooper has said: "I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future."

You say Republicans are rich. Muslims' income is higher than average. Income is irrelevant.

Look at Europe. They still have only Muslim minorities, and all kinds of problems because a large share of their Muslims want to live under Sharia, not under a system with Western freedoms (e.g. freedom to blaspheme, freedom to leave Islam, etc.) I bet Europeans wish they'd noticed this sooner. In some neighborhoods, non-Muslim women wear headscarves on their way to and from their homes to avoid the violence that would ensue if they didn't wear them. And that's not the worst of it.

Liberal parties in Europe are losing popularity because they refuse to acknowledge an obvious problem. This will happen here one day.

Use your head, webfoot. If

Sat, 09/11/2010 - 19:38 — Anonymous (not verified)

Use your head, webfoot. If Islamism were so rare, then why do Islamists pop up all over the place as leaders of major Muslim organizations? Why do so few Muslim organizations take a pro-active stand in favor of secularism? It's only the tiniest, reform-minded Muslim organizations that take a firm secularist position. They have their work cut out for them.