Category Archives: Islamophobia

Pork Barrel Islamophobia

Bible and Holy Land, Humor and Satire, Islamophobia, Islamophobia 101, Terrorism Issue

The biblical prophet Isaiah talked about turning swords into plowshares. Leave it to a bunch of Idahoites to turn bullets into bullshit. In the online world of chickenhawkers of nonsense, you are now able to buy pork-laced ammunition. The theory (I hesitate to use this term for such a potato-head notion) is that if a Muslim jihadi is shot with one of these bullets he will, of course, go straight to hell. Here is the rationale on the “about us” of their website:

History of dealings with radical Islam from the days of Jefferson and the Barbary Pirates to actions of Gen. John J. “Black Jack” Pershing in the early 1900’s in the Philippines gave clarity to a modern day market solution-Jihawg Ammo. Our preference is peace first but if a fight is to be had we are determined and resolved to win. Thus came the beginning of the truest form of defensive ammunition ever created in history.

A natural deterrent that prevents violence just by owning it but will strike fear into the hearts of those bent upon hate, violence and murder. Jihawg Ammo is certified “Haraam” or unclean. According to the belief system of the radical Islamist becoming “unclean” during Jihad will prevent their attaining entrance into heaven. Jihawg Ammo is a natural deterrent to radical and suicidal acts of violence.

Our Porcine Coating (Pattern Pending) is infused with the highest quality pork product made right here in America. Jihawg Ammo is produced in the great state of Idaho.

We at Jihawg Ammo hope you will stock up on Jihawg as a natural deterrent to the ever growing threat of radical Islam and Sharia Law. We, however, stress that the nullifying principle of our product is only effective if you are attacked by an Islamist in Jihad. Otherwise, our ammo functions just like any other ammunition so we obviously insist upon defensive use of our ammo only-not offensive.

I suppose it is a comfort that this ammo is only for defense, but then it is sad indeed that those folk who think Obama is a Muslim and the U.S. Supreme Court is about to institute shariah law are also convinced that the Moslems will soon be staging operations in their own backyard (now that the commies decided not to come and rape our women, after all). Perhaps in addition to gun control, we also need dumb-ass control.

A “Mental” Lapse for David Brooks

"Arab Spring", Egypt, Ethics, Islamophobia, Journalism and Media

In today’s New York Times, talking head David Brooks makes what I think on a certain level could be a valid point, but suffers a “mental” lapse in the process. He divides the camps weighing in on the recent military “coup” in Egypt as those who emphasize process and those who emphasize substance. Starting with a simplistic binary is only the first mistake. Process and substance are hardly independent variables. The process he talks about is “democracy,” as though any time a bunch of ballots are collected in what the Carter Center would call a “free election,” there must be democracy. In the Egyptian case, the Carter Center noted that the election was “marred by uncertainty.” It is obvious that there is no “free” election anywhere in the strict sense. People are often intimidated or so ideologically driven that they do not consider the options available. In many elections, Egypt and Iran being only recent examples, the options are so limited that some people do not even bother to vote. Then there is the question of one-person-one vote vs. the electoral patch that underlies the democracy of the United States. Democracy is a chimera if not seen as relative to other forms of political coercion.

But Brooks steps deep in his own bullshit (and then puts his rhetorical foot in his mouth) when he claims that “It’s not that Egypt doesn’t have a recipe for a democratic transition. It seems to lack even the basic mental ingredients.” The “it” here is the word for a nation state, but the implication is that the people of Egypt are somehow mentally deficient. He does not even bother to clarify that his target is the so-called “Islamists,” but totally ignores the fact that Egyptians are a diverse population with views all across the political spectrum. I wonder what these “basic mental ingredients” are? Can they be found with the Tea Party or even the current debilitating state of the Republican Party in the United States? Does the Democratic Party have such basic mental ingredients when it has conservatives who vote against the Democratic president to secure their seats in Confederate territory? Continue reading A “Mental” Lapse for David Brooks →

Pathologizing Islam and Pax Americana

Islam in America, Islamophobia, Teaching Resources

by Timothy P. Daniels, The Islamic Monthly, April 22

In the aftermath of a week of mainstream media coverage and elite political figure’s statements related to the Boston Marathon bombing, the ongoing processes of pathologizing Islam and its significance for Pax Americana are made evident. Initial questions about whether this bombing was the work of domestic or foreign terrorists or the work of “lone” wolves quickly turned to claims about Arab individuals, international students, and dark-skinned men with foreign accents as “persons-of-interest” and “suspects.” The specter of dangerous foreign “others” in Boston overshadowed the likely homegrown white-supremacist-Christian terrorism lying behind the eerie fertilizer factory explosion in Waco, Texas close to the 20th anniversary of the FBI massacre of the Branch Davidian “cult.” Fourteen dead, scores injured, and an entire town left demolished; however this devastating event was hurriedly pushed out of the news cycle and political rhetoric without any answers for why this blast occurred. The irrationality of this differential response became even more apparent after the FBI released and posted pictures of two suspected bombers and the subsequent massive military mobilization of forces and technologies to corner, capture, and kill these young men. As their identities as Muslim Chechens became known, the media began to speculate about their links to international terrorism and their presumed religious motives. Continue reading Pathologizing Islam and Pax Americana →

Whose body is it anyway?

"Arab Spring", Anthropology/Sociology, CyberOrient, Gender and Sexuality, Islamophobia

Last Thursday was dubbed “Topless Jihad Day,” a call by the feminist group FEMEN for women to protest in support of a Tunisian woman who posted photographs of herself topless (with remarks on her body that many would consider tasteless) on her Facebook site and soon received condemnation and calls for punishment. The result was hardly an outpouring of indigenous support like the “Arab Spring” that flooded the main squares of Tunis, Cairo and Sanaa. The FEMEN website has posted images of women baring their breasts in Rio de Janeiro, San Francisco, Montreal, Paris, Milan, Kiev, Brussels, Berlin and a few other major cities. Two things stand out about this day of protest. First, it takes place only in cosmopolitan Western cities, not in Muslim-majority countries. Second, several of the scenes focus on the protesting women being arrested for breaking the law. The patriarchy that is being protested is not, therefore, only an issue about Islam.

There is a basic principle of physics that every action results in a reaction. The moral code that would cause a Tunisian cleric to condemn a young Tunisian woman for exposing her breast on Facebook causes a protest from an international feminist organization. And, not surprisingly, there is a counter to this from a “Muslimah Pride” network. As the young woman in the image above indicates, she does not feel liberated by exposing her body. But perhaps even more poignant is her comment that she does not need saving. It is not clear if this Muslim woman is condemning the Tunisian woman at the center of the current protest, but she is definitely making a statement about her own body. Whose body is it anyway?

FEMEN has attracted followers for a variety of reasons. I suspect that some testosterone-loaded males in the West cheer wildly whenever a woman shows her bare breasts. These hardly support the stated goal of FEMEN: “sextremism serving to protect women’s rights, democracy watchdogs attacking patriarchy, in all its forms: the dictatorship, the church, the sex industry.” Historically there is no question that women have not had equal rights with men in economic, political or legal contexts; this is true for almost all cultures, ranging from those with despicable patriarchal rules to democracies with permanent glass ceilings. Secularism has challenged many (but not all) of these inequalities, giving women the right to own property, vote, and theoretically have equal opportunities in education and the workplace. Appeals to women’s rights resonate with most people, whether secular or religious, but the devil is in the details.

There is also an elephant in the room, in everyone’s room: who decides what women’s rights are? Continue reading Whose body is it anyway? →

Farid Esack in New York

Conferences and Talks, Islam and Christianity, Islamophobia, Scholars, Terrorism Issue


Farid Esack

The Academic Study of Islam and/in/for the Wounded Empire
A Lecture by Dr. Farid Esack
Fri, 5 Apr, 2013 4:00 PM – 6:00 PM

Union Theological Seminary
3041 Broadway at 121st Street
New York, NY 10027

The September 11, 2001 attacks in the USA significantly impacted Islamicists (scholars in the Study of Islam). These events contributed immensely to the growth of irenic scholarship, in which Islamicists increasingly dove into the trenches in order to help save Muslims and the image of Islam from the attacks of different quarters—primarily Western governments and armies and the mass media. This defensive engagement of the Islamicist, described as ‘bunker scholarship’, raises significant questions about fidelity to the post-Enlightenment foundations of critical scholarship. What is more, such scholarship often plays a significantly accommodationist role in co-creating compliant Muslim subjects in a larger hegemonic project.
About Dr. Farid Esack

Professor Farid Esack is a South African Muslim theologian who cut his teeth in the South African struggle for liberation. He studied in Pakistan, the UK and Germany and is the author of Qur’an, Liberation and Pluralism, On Being a Muslim, An Introduction to the Qur’an, and Islam, HIV & AIDS –Between Scorn, Pity & Justice. He has published on Islam, Gender, Liberation Theology, Interfaith Relations, and Qur’anic Hermeneutics. Professor Esack served as a Commissioner for Gender Equality in South Africa and has taught at the University of Western Cape, University of Hamburg, the College of William & Mary, Union Theological Seminary, and Xavier University in Cincinnati. More recently he served as the Prince Al-Waleed Bin Talal Professor of Contemporary Islam at Harvard University. Farid Esack is now Professor in the Study of Islam and Head of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of Johannesburg.

Registration is required. RSVP online.

iOrientalism: Fooling around with Arab princesses

Anthropology/Sociology, CyberOrient, Film and Video, Gender and Sexuality, Islamophobia, YouTube Watch


The late Edward Said lamented the biased representation of the “Oriental” in his influential Orientalism, published 35 years ago. Most of the scholarly and voyeuristic tomes he critiqued are rarely read these days, although his intellectual nemesis Bernard Lewis is well represented in your local Barnes and Noble bookstore (in part thanks to a desire for selling books rather than seriously vetting them by some of the editors at Oxford University Press). Few students of the Middle East or Islamic studies these days have ever heard of Lord Cromer or William Muir or Raphael Patai, let alone would read and be influenced by their aged volumes. The ugly ethnocentrism, racism and sexism that once could be found in the broad (far too broad) discourse labeled “Orientalism” is still quite evident, although moreso in the media, political punditry on the right and rantings of career Islamophobes than by serious scholars. But we are now in the digital age and iOrientalism is now propelled through Facebook, Twitter and Youtube via iphones, ipods and their technological clones.

One Youtube video that recently appeared on a Youtube search that had nothing to do with the subject I was searching is a mock video-game fight between three hefty-bosomed and bursting-at-the-bra-straps Arab princesses and a swarthy Mike Tysonish evil guy. This appears to be a promo for Poser Pro Animation rather than a cultural statement per se. The three Arab princesses are so scantily clad that it is more the tile-glazed architecture and palm trees that orientalize than the costume or look. Of the three kung-fu trained ladies, one has red hair, one is a blond and the other is wearing what looks to me like the kind of aviator helmet worn by Amelia Earhart in the 1930s. The bully wears a leather waist band, but otherwise the shaft he was endowed with by nature is visible to the three princesses, but not to those of us viewing the video. Ironically, this parallels Said’s choice of the Gérôme’s painting that graced the cover of the original paperback of Orientalism: this features a naked boy with a snake wrapped around him and a group of grizzled Walnetto perverts staring at his organ, while we voyeuristic viewers can only see the glistening buttocks of the youth. Continue reading iOrientalism: Fooling around with Arab princesses →

And the winner is … Islamophobia

Film and Video, Iran, Islamophobia 101, Journalism and Media, Osama Bin Laden


The moral ambiguity of Homeland or Argo is a fitting tribute to the reality of US Middle East policy

by Rachel Shabi, The Guardian, Monday 14 January 2013

America’s Middle East policy has been enthusiastically endorsed. Not at the UN or Arab League, however, but by the powerbrokers of Hollywood. At the Golden Globes, there were gongs for a heroically bearded CIA spook saving hostages and American face in Iran (the film Argo); a heroically struggling agent tracking down Bin Laden (Zero Dark Thirty) and heroically flawed CIA operatives protecting America from mindless, perpetual terror (TV series Homeland).

The three winners have all been sold as complex, nuanced productions that don’t shy away from hard truths about US foreign policy. And liberal audiences can’t get enough of them. Perhaps it’s because, alongside the odd bit of self-criticism, they are all so reassuringly insistent that, in an increasingly complicated world, America just keeps on doing the right thing. And even when it does the wrong thing – such as, I don’t know, torture and drone strikes and deadly invasions – it is to combat far greater evil, and therefore OK.

When I saw Argo in London with a Turkish friend, we were the only ones not clapping at the end. Instead, we were wondering why every Iranian in this horribly superior film was so angry and shouty. It was a tense, meticulously styled depiction of America’s giant, perpetual, wailing question mark over the Middle East: “Why do they hate us?” Iranians are so irked by the historically flimsy retelling of the hostage crisis that their government has commissioned its own version in response.

Zero Dark Thirty, another blanked-out, glossed-up portrayal of US policy, seems to imply that America’s use of torture – sorry, “enhanced interrogation” – is legitimate because it led to the capture of Osama bin Laden (something that John McCain and others have pointed out is not even true). Adding insult to moral bankruptcy, the movie has been cast as a feminist film, because it has a smart female lead. This is cinematic fraud: a device used to extort our approval. Continue reading And the winner is … Islamophobia →