All-American Americans

The home-improvement store, Lowe's, has pulled its advertising from TLC's "All-American Muslim," a reality series based on the lives of five American Muslim families from Dearborn, Mich.

Lowe's decision was prompted by the complaint of an evangelical Christian group known as the Florida Family Association, who threatened to boycott the company's products because they believed the show projected "propaganda that riskily hides the Islamic agenda's clear and present danger to American liberties and traditional values."

Lowe's customers are divided in their support for and against the decision, and protests have also started. Senator Ted Lieu has called the action "bigoted, shameful and un-American." 

This is a free country, one may argue. Lowe's is a private company and unless it is in breach of contract with TLC, it is entitled to making its business decisions independent of any outside influence or interference.

That would be a valid argument, except for a minor detail: Lowe's decision to withdraw its advertising from TLC's reality show is a direct response to the negative campaign against Muslim Americans by an interest group. Hence, it brings to surface a deeper debate – a debate about American liberties and consumer driven social order.   

So, what is this reality show called "All-American Muslim" about? Who are the "controversial" characters that are so out of favor with the Florida Family Association that they threaten their sense of civil liberties and traditional values?

A quick viewing of the pilot episode introduces one to the five American Muslim families. One couple deals with family drama while tying the knot, another welcomes their first baby; a third couple teaches their four children to balance religious and cultural identities, the fourth juggles an all too familiar balancing act of parenting and careers, and a fifth family features an independent and ambitious Muslim woman.

Their professions range from special education aide to respiratory therapist, federal agent, football coach and law enforcement – as diverse in their line of work as they are in the expression of their faith where hijab and low necklines make for an interesting contrast. What, one wonders, could be more representative of the American experience and less threatening to American liberties? "All-American Muslims" should really be called "All-American Americans," and the only controversy they may be accused of evoking is challenging the stereotype. 

When the producers at TLC conceived the idea of a show about American Muslims, it was likely to gain some good publicity and steady viewership, and challenging negative perceptions about a community that is openly vilified.

The five families featured in the show also aimed to discourage hate-filled rhetoric they encounter in public by allowing TV cameras into the privacy of their homes. A 2010 Gallup survey reveals that 63 percent of Americans acknowledge that they have "little" or "none at all" knowledge of Islam, and 53 percent have a "not favorable at all" view about Muslims. The FFA's complaint shows that many of us would rather continue to embrace their willful ignorance than welcome the opportunity to become better informed.

No matter how one analyses Lowe's decision, it comes out as irrational. Perhaps FFA and Lowe's should have read the 2011 Pew Research Study titled "Muslim Americans: No Sign of Growth in Alienation or Support for Extremism" to alleviate their fears. In the absence of solid evidence of the "Islamic agenda" that Muslims have been accused of, there can be no justification for FFA's insinuation.  

Business-wise, the decision seems unwise, and Senator Lieu speaks for many when he says, "As a consumer, I find Lowe's bigotry to be nonsensical."

When experts at Lowe's put their heads together to weigh their options, perhaps they should have done their research thoroughly.

According to the largest advertising agency in the U.S., JWT's 2007 study,  the combined annual disposable income from Muslim households in America is estimated at more than $170 billion, and for 70 percent of the respondents "brands play an important role in their purchasing decisions, compared to 55 percent for the average American." It is sad that Lowe's has chosen to embrace the bigotry purported by the FFA. Unless some steps are taken as redress, it is not hard to imagine where that disposable income will not end up.

Interest groups are at liberty to push for their agendas because this is a free country, but we have a civic responsibility to reject what damages societal harmony. To suspend rational thought and give others the power to exploit us leads to social chaos, and we inadvertently become enablers of hatred. That only makes for a fractured community, not a strong cohesive one. 

Published in Sharon Patch as  'All American Muslims' are Really All-American Americans Dec 2011

A Legacy of Hate

Op-Ed

It is time to heal ourselves now

A children’s coloring book recently published by Big Coloring Books, Inc., in St. Louis, titled,We shall never Forget - The Kids Book of Freedom has sparked much controversy of late. It claims to be a tribute to the victims of 9/11, but many are questioning its deeper agenda.

Responding to criticism, Wayne Bell, the publisher of the book, has denied it advocates anti-Muslim sentiment. He was quoted on Abc News as saying, “This book under no way… zero, zero… no way… mentions Islam or Muslims…it does not mention Islam in generalities...” He claims the book was “created with honesty, integrity, reverence, respect and does not shy away from the truth.” However, a cursory glance through the book makes one pause to consider the implications of the message it appears to advocate – albeit unintentionally, if we are to honor Wayne Bell’s words.

To begin with, the phrase ‘radical Islamic Muslim extremists’ appears ten times through the course of its 36 pages, and in one section the book claims: “These attacks will change the way America deals with and views the Islamic and Muslim people around the world…”, connecting all Muslims living in countries around the world to 9/11, and making no attempt to distinguish between the small minority engaged in promoting violence and the majority of peaceful Muslims worldwide. It might be true to say that the attacks have influenced the American foreign policy towards Muslim countries since 9/11, but the last decade has also brought to us the sad reality of how America has changed the way it deals with its own Muslim citizens, where despite assurances otherwise embedding of FBI informans pretending to be Muslim converts inside mosques are now old stories. This has been widely criticized as a counter-productive measure since it appears to treat all Muslims as part of the problem.

 On a more personal level, Americans now view their fellow countrymen with suspicion and hatred. This has alienated huge sections of the society and pitted communities against each other which should have been working to buid relationships. Similarly, institutions that should be working in collaboration with each other to defeat violent extremism end up being in collision due to lack of trust. This situation has undermined the strength of the American society and created fissures in the beautiful mosaic of ethnicities, cultures and Faiths that America has always been proud to host.

The book also makes other observations that appear to be unfounded and based on conjecture, for example, “Children, the truth is, these terrorist acts were done by freedom-hating radical Islamic Muslim extremists. These crazy people hate the American way of life because we are FREE and our society is FREE.” The simple fact of the matter is that 9/11 and later acts were not carried out by individuals who hated the American way of life, but by individuals who have used their religion as an excuse to further their personal agenda. Terrorism is all about power and control, and terrorists of all affiliations use excuses to further their agenda, and gather support from the like-minded. A simple question we can all ask ourselves is, if the supremacy of Islam is the main motivation for these self-proclaimed defenders of faith, why do they continue to kill innocent Muslim men, women and children in staggering numbers in Muslim countries?  No one can refute the fact that the 9/11 bombing was carried out by individuals who were Muslim. We know they were Muslims because they believed themselves to be, and we have to accept how a person wants to define himself,  but why are we failing to make a clear distinction between them and the mainstream Muslims?

Perhaps the American nation needs to pause for a moment and try to make sense of the cacophony of messages it receives from multiple sources, each with its own agenda, and reflect not only on the immediate impact of the sad event of 9/11, but also the long term effects of the decisions they make today that will shape the lives of their future generations. The periodic resurfacing of hateful agendas may be the price of living in a free society, as a dear friend pointed out to me, but freedom also comes with responsibility – a responsibility for everyone, but more so for those who may not be on the receiving end of this campaign of hate but who believe in upholding justice and fairness for all. It is only when the silent majority stands up to deny anyone the opportunity to contribute to further disintegration of societal fabric that we will begin to heal.

The publisher’s claim, if we are to acknowledge as credible, that the book has already sold out of its first print run of 10,000 copies should be a cause of alarm for all of us. Can we hope that more parents will begin to make a conscious choice to not let anyone pass on a legacy of hate to their children? Can we, indeed, hope to leave a better world for our children based on tolerance and respectful engagement?

Let us say, “Enough!” and move on now. We owe our children a future full of hope, not regret. 

A version of this article was published in Sharon Patch as Divided, We Fall 

A Time to Reflect

Opinion

Is religious correctness stifling freedom of speech or free expression testing religious boundaries?

Multi-religious and multi-cultural societies have still much to learn by way of harmonious coexistence, not the least of which is finding a balance between freedom of speech and religious correctness.

Starting with the controversy aroused over two decades ago by Salman Rushdie’s ‘The Satanic Verses’, a trend was set into motion that continues to threaten social cohesion in many societies even today. The Danish Cartoon Controversy rendered the world even more divided on the issue of freedom of speech and religious sensitivity, and now the 200th episode of South Park has sparked off the latest debate on what is seen as religious correctness vs. freedom to ridicule. This is a debate that keeps coming back to haunt us and hence worth a few moments of our consideration.

South Park, an animated comedy series production of the American television network, Comedy Central, is a social satire depicting life through the eyes of four fourth-grade boys living in a fictional town in Colorado. Intended for adult audiences only, it is known for the use of crude humor and strong profanity while spinning some spitting satire. Some previous episodes have received criticism; including one titled ‘Bloody Mary’ condemned by the Catholics, and another on Scientology caused Tom Cruise to demand further reruns of the episode be cancelled.

The contentious issue of the depiction of the Prophet of Islam in the costume of a teddy bear, though now censored, has aroused reactions in the Muslim world ranging from quiet indignation to fatwas and threats made in the murky cyber world. With political correctness getting in the way of direct communication, one ends up trusting Newspaper websites and blogs to depict the public mindset. Queries range from questioning the sense of humor – or lack thereof – of Muslims, to why Prophet Muhammad remains beyond ridicule if Jesus and Moses have been targeted in earlier episodes with no threat of violence from either religious community. But, more importantly, a heated debate rages over where the concept of freedom of speech rests in view of the decision to censor the offending episode? Valid queries, all.

With the Satanic Verses and the Cartoon issue, the voices of reason within the Muslim community were silenced by those supporting retaliation with force, ‘Are you part of the Muslim community or not?’ – a version of the infamous Bush era theme of ‘with us or against us’. At that point, many peaceful Muslims would have liked to see some understanding for their sensitivities and hear from the non-Muslim or Western community, ‘We're sorry you feel offended and can also see why, given the high respect you accord your Prophet, but we believe in freedom of speech and cannot take away that right even from offending voices.’ Instead the message that came through was, ‘We have the right to abuse anyone we like, that's our concept of freedom of speech – accept it or leave."

This lack of sensitivity for religious concerns of Muslims at that time also alienated the reasonable voices to an extent by changing their indignation against the violent lot in their own community towards those supporting the offensive words and images. Everyone lost perspective. Groups of Muslims went on the rampage in a show of resentment, and a corresponding rise of sympathy and support was seen for the offending material from the proponents of free speech. Material which was probably doomed for the dustbins of time managed to etch an eternal plaque for itself in the annals of history, and continues to color our perceptions even today.

The South Park issue and the response to it are very similar to the Cartoon Controversy. The censorship seems to have taken care of the immediate threat to violence for now, but there is no guarantee future issues will be similarly contained, and whether that is the right solution in the long term. How much censorship a society used to unrestricted freedom of expression will tolerate, is also a question that will keep on urging us to face uncomfortable realities and make some uncomfortable choices. While religious correctness need not stifle freedom of speech, targeting religious sensitivities is also not the only form of humor one needs to learn to appreciate. However, the politics of violence will have to be shunned unequivocally.

Civilized protest is a right guaranteed to all, but no legal framework or religious code of conduct encourages violence. Muslims have every right to feel offended by attempts at humor at their cost and express their displeasure, but they must learn some peaceful and effective forms of protest. That might actually win them some sympathy, since most people of all affiliations still choose civility over the right to ridicule. Overt or covert references to serious consequences only produce hatred.

In this regard, Muslims need only recall the example of their beloved Prophet in terms of his response to ridicule and scorn during his lifetime to decide their own reactions to such provocation. The authenticated records of the Prophet’s life, the books of Hadith, depict the Prophet responding with kindness to people who openly ridiculed and abused him. He neither did himself, nor asked his companions to retaliate with force, but instead chose to teach by example of forgiveness. A Hadith from Sahih Al-Bukhari, establishes the same point: "And you do not do evil to those Who do evil to you, but you deal With them with forgiveness and kindness."

The basic message imparted by all major religions is of forgiveness and kindness. Some of us either have convenient memories or tend to overlook that important message to promote our own agendas. Isn’t it time to set our perspectives and priorities in order and learn to coexist peacefully to benefit the societies we inhabit?

Published: The Radicla Middle Way on May 17, 2010

The Right Choice

Opinion

Alienation of hearts and minds has the potential to strengthen the monster of violence we all despise.

Disturbing stories of violent acts committed by seemingly intelligent and stable individuals grace the media from time to time. Whether adhering to an all too common nihilistic ideology, holding personal grievances against former employers or disturbed by workplace harassment, these acts constantly challenge our perception of the world around us. A majority of people – whatever their religion, cultural background or affiliation – would probably never fully comprehend the motivation behind violent acts because these are consistently inconsistent with the basic values that form the fabric of civilized societies.

As communities big and small struggle to make sense of it, comments posted in blogs and newspaper websites give one a fair idea of the anger and calls for retaliation that acts of violence provoke, while at the same time there is much to appreciate in the saner voices urging for reason to prevail. Mainstream Muslims in the post 9/11 US are increasingly bewildered why they get so easily grouped together with the 'bad guys', the moment some untoward incident happens, in societies they have inhabited and contributed productively to for decades. In homogenous societies, it is perhaps relatively easy to draw a line between right and wrong and distance oneself form the less favoured position, but heterogeneous societies can come with a unique problem when ‘the good, the bad and the ugly’, so to speak, of any ethnic, religious or cultural group might find themselves labeled as one. Unfortunately, this also forms the basis for another form of what is now popularly known as 'collateral': the alienation of hearts and minds.

This alienation is something to be feared because when resentment against the individual who has committed a brutal act extends to envelop a whole community, not only does it incite hatred and threaten social cohesion, but it also has the potential to isolate the very people who can make a difference, as they grow increasingly tired of explaining themselves for the actions of those they have nothing to do with. While the generally accepted position for peoples of other Faiths inhabiting countries around the world regarding terrorism remains ‘innocent until proven guilty’, for Muslims it has become the opposite. Even though no other religious community is called on to accept responsibility for individual murderers within their fold, Muslims around the world are expected to do just that. That’s a heavy burden to carry; one that is starting to take its toll.

Since the tragedy of 9/11, there has been so much collateral in physical, emotional and psychological terms that the world may never go back to how we knew it. Tragedies have a way of bringing people together through the common experience of learning to piece together a shattered existence. Yet, 9/11 and its subsequent events have divided the world so sharply on religious lines that there seems to be no turning back unless a conscious effort to reverse the trend is undertaken through active engagement at every level.

This spirit of tolerance and engagement is not hard to find. It resides within us, and without. I – a Muslim living in the diverse society I now inhabit – have seen it and felt it, and there is no reason why it can’t be extended to and from others like me. I find it apparent in the welcoming smiles of the lovely women of my book club and the constant support of considerate friends who know and respect me for who I am rather than fit me into a stereotype; it is hiding in the thoughtful quotes selected by the librarian who talks to me about deeper truths of life, promoting a selfless existence; it shines through the little acts of care my colleagues at work show when they step in ever so quickly if they see me headed for a cultural faux pas my newness leaves me vulnerable to; it reaches out to me through the people who make an extra effort to learn to pronounce my name just right and share their thoughts on concepts of compassion and mercy, and it envelops me in its warmth when I stand with dedicated people so focused on seeing the vision of interfaith harmony materialize – this spirit of tolerance is indeed alive and well in the hearts of Americans of all Faiths and affiliations that I come across every day.

Is that an overly simplistic view? Am I missing something? Not really, for I have also experienced the unpleasantness of being seen as an extension of the bad news that comes from my part of the world so consistently these days – I have come across those who retreat as soon as they learn the name of my home country and those who, despite having some meaningful contact with me for over a year, have now chosen to walk away – still, I want to believe that the wonderful people around me are representative of the majority and may the few, who struggle with their fears and take refuge in generalizations, find their peace before it is too late to make amends.

History teaches us that the actions of a few have so often ruined the lives of many. But then, a few others have made all the difference. The cycle of violence and mistrust does not have to go on if we refuse to give in to our fears. It is hard, but ‘doable’ – as my American friends would say. All we have to do is make the right choice. Not tomorrow, but now. Choose to reach out. Choose to resolve. And choose to reunite. All it takes is an open mind, and a belief – yes, we can.

A version of this article was published in the ICNE Newsletter, March 26, 2010.