My commentary on Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s Infidel was written over time. I jotted down my thoughts as I read the book, stopping to write every so often. You may be wondering why I didn’t just finish the book and write some sort of composite review, but I find some value in recording my impressions when they are fresh…like an evolving relationship with a supposedly evolving character. This is especially true of an autobiography, where the writer is at least attempting to explain events as they occurred without the character knowing where his or her life was headed. Unlike fiction, the writer doesn’t have an overall “plan”, however vague, for the character.

==============

March 4, 2008:

Currently on page 134 of Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s 350 page autobiography Infidel. The book is not just about her past, but about how her past apparently justifies her personal and global judgments on religion and Islam specifically. Aside from the female genital circumcision part of her story, which was strangely brief, her story isn’t terribly different from what even most American Muslim women can speak to. That is, most of us who have grappled meaningfully with our faith have dealt with the fundo phase, where black-and-white Islam seems to be both a comfort and an assault on our notions of self-dignity and worth. We all struggle to define gender equality within a framework that doesn’t seem to really allow it.

But somehow, some or, I hope, most of us, don’t end up where she did - frustrated with Islam, unable to reconcile it with her deep seated notions of equality, sexuality, and individuality. That raises a question, though: why her? Why not us? What was different?

I think a part of it may be that she didn’t have the sort of mentors and companions, vicarious or real, who helped her with her spiritual negotiation. Her father was often missing, and her mother was staunchly anti-discussion and free thought. She was bent on having her daughters conform to her version of Islam and culture and to essentially live out what she had been forced to endure. Hirsi Ali’s siblings were not too helpful either, each living their own paths, her sister fiercely defiant and her brother finding his own winding way to authority, control, and honor. Her friends and acquaintances, teachers like Sister Aziza, and even those who attended the evening debates on Islam-related matters - none of them seemed to align with her. Her deepest love, Abshir, was perhaps the closest she got to finding a spiritual soulmate, but his parallel confusion made him obviously hypocritical. She spurned him because he created divisions where she sought unity.

Maybe there’s a character still waiting in the curtains, somewhere in the latter half of her book, who brought meaning to her religious quest. But I doubt it. If she ended up where she did, then her religious experiences were on a constant downward spiral, not leading her somewhere that made sense. Her past wasn’t making her present and future anymore whole. Being lost rather than grounded in time and life’s progression, in the ways I suggest in Spirals, seemed to be the cause of her religous infidelity.

But again - why? Why didn’t she find a mentor? Why does God give some of us that companion, and some of us not, even if the lack of such guidance can lead to our losing faith?

===================

March 14, 2008:

So now I’m on page 270 of Infidel. As I near the end of the book, I am seeing more and more of what I had picked up on earlier in the book - that many, if not all, of her conclusions about Islam are simplistic and logically fallible. She states her conclusions point-blank, and doesn’t even acknowledge the existence or possibility of counterarguments. I’m at the point in the book right after she learned of the 9/11 attacks and is reevaluating her views on Islam. Her colleague states that this attack is due more to socioeconomic, political and cultural matters than it is to religious belief. She denies his position vehemently, using as proof that because, for example, the hijackers weren’t Palestinian, there is no way this can be related to the Palestine-Israel conflict. Or that because they themselves are not poor and oppressed, it has nothing to do with social and political oppression. For someone who fancies herself deeply connected to rationalism and Western Enlightenment, she doesn’t exhibit much in the way of either logical consistency or sociological sensitivity. Just because the hijackers claim to be committing crimes in order to attain religious reward doesn’t preclude the fact that (1) the hijackers’ version of religion is taught and encouraged by social circumstances and that this version may be entirely distinct and even antithetical to the religion itself; and (2) that the hijackers don’t have to be poor, or Palestinian for that matter, to feel tied enough to those causes that they feel the need to act for them.

Although the attacks cannot be justified, some holistic explanation is in order, something that pinpoints a problem that needs to be intelligently addressed. Racist, simplistic conclusions that are not related to the core issue are not going to help. That the Dutch commentators point to Islam’s history of peace and intellectual fervor doesn’t make them somehow out of touch with reality, as Hirsi Ali states. Instead, these commentators are looking for reasons why a culture that bred tolerance and rationalism can suddenly be used to justify totally barbaric acts against humanity. Particular religious interpretations feeding off of peripheral issues are the problem, not the core itself - otherwise the entire history of Islam would be about violence and hatred.

To the extent that she uses her own experiences of poverty and oppression as a way of reaching conclusions about Islam, she seems oblivious to other causes of socioeconomic depravity. She also doesn’t realize that the Islamic Empire itself was vastly more wealthy and sophisticated than the Western world. By viewing all of Islam through the lens of the current global situation and, even more narrowly, her particular experience of Islam is to discount a million factors and influences, ranging from the political to the social and to the psychological results of such influences.

From the moment she steps into Europe, she remains completely enamored. She acknowledges in passing that Holland does have some problems, but overall, it seems to her that the Dutch are living an almost idyllic life. It’s unfortunate that in all of Holland she didn’t find a compassionate, rational Muslim to connect with (or at least she conveniently excludes such characters from her book) but that such Muslims exist is, I’m sure, something she learned of from her colleagues or readings. But she ignores the possibility of such a thing - a modernized, intellectually-aware Muslim, and chooses instead to conflate all things bad and poor with Islam and Muslims, as if one cannot be extricated from the other. That her initial childish impressions of Europe and modernization were not at some point tempered by intellectual subtlety is not merely unfortunate, but evidence of a conscious disregard for anything that would shake her predetermined notions of Islam and Muslims.

=================

March 22, 2008

I finally finished the book a few days ago. Throughout my reading, I periodically abandoned the book but whenever I finally made it back, I found it hard to put down. The drama, deceit, and sensationalism kept me hooked, I guess. These 80 pages to the end of the book, however, were quite painful, and mostly I plugged through it because I just wanted to be done with it.

First, the parts of her story that I can understand: I can understand her frustration with lack of cultural integration. The Dutch government, in wanting to give immigrants their space, decided against forced assimilation. Hirsi Ali is right in demanding that the government not use its anti-integration policy as a way of turning a blind eye to existing human rights violations.

A bit trickier: I also understand her insistence on pointing to the religious bases of some of these human rights violations. But, I think this approach is about cultural sensitivity rather than about attacking religion. When it comes to religiously-motivated crimes, it is not enough to blame culture alone, when such demarcation between culture and religion fails to get to the crux of the matter as the perpetrators themselves understand it. That is, if a father feels it is his religious duty to kill his daughter for her illicit love affair, then in counteracting that problem, the government must deal with the role of religion in that man’s worldview. Again, dealing with religion is about understanding it enough to come up with a solution more attuned to the problem. In the case of religion, it may be about counteracting a particular interpretation with another one. In no case is it about attacking all forms of the religion itself.

Now, the parts I don’t understand and which, essentially, belie understanding: I don’t understand how someone purportedly tied to the values of liberalism, such as respecting diversity, can continue to attack a major world religion in the crudest of ways, and then wonder why the reaction is so virulent. Of course, actions such as the murder of Theo Van Gogh are not justifiable, but to describe the incident as “I don’t understand how someone can be so angry at a mere film” (as Hirsi Ali states in her book) is ridiculously blind to the fact that Submission was not a mere film. It was a film that insulted its Muslim viewers in the deepest core of their being. She ends her book by noting that some people have told her that her criticisms of Islam are too aggressive, but goes on to say that the pain oppressed women suffer is far worse. But do all Muslims have to be constantly insulted in order for women oppressed in the name of Islam to find relief? According to her atheist dogmatism, religion is the bane of all existence. And so despite billions of people’s intimate, meaningful connections to their faith tradition, it is perfectly okay to insult them.

Though her atheism makes it legitimate, in her eyes, for her to insult religion and religious folk, she does take some pains throughout the book to distinguish Islam from Judaism and Christianity. She notes, for example, that “unlike” Judaism and Christianity, Islam requires that its followers’ relationship with God be entirely about submission. I am not sure where and when she educated herself about Judaism and Christianity, but she seems to have completely overlooked each of these religion’s fundamentalist strains.

For Hirsi Ali, “submission” requires blind following, with no space for questioning or interpretation. In fact, earlier on in the book, when her father tells her about his relatively modern views of Islam, she blows him off by stating that his views are mere interpretations and that real Islam is about literal interpretation. She echoes this thought toward the end of her book when she claims that Saudi Arabia practices the “purest” form of Islam.

In all of this talk of purity and what Islam really is, it never occurs to her that she has basically internalized a particular rhetoric about “pureness” and the essential superiority of literal readings of Scripture. She decides somewhere along the line that this particular rhetoric is the truest expression of Islam. Unlike millions of Muslims who undergo spiritual evolution in the course of their lives as they attempt to better understand their religion, Hirsi Ali somehow knows, for certain, what Islam is. She never doubts it or checks it against the practice and belief of the full diversity of Muslims across the world. Again, I find her naïveté unsettling – and her rise to a position of political prominence even more disturbing.

Asma Uddin is a freelance writer and editor, and is an attorney at the national law firm, Morgan Lewis & Bockius. She lives in Philadelphia with her husband and daughter.

The Good, the Bad and the Iraqi

By WAJAHAT ALI

“Privatize first, ask questions later.”

William D Hartung

“I would like to have the largest, most professional private army in the world”

Gary Jackson, President of Blackwater, hired to protect Lt. Gen Paul Bremer, head of the CPA.

“For most of the world’s governments, though, there are simply no applicable laws that regulate and define the jurisdictions under which PMF’s (Private Military Firms) operate.”

P.W. Singer

“It’s more cost effective to outsource some of those activities, those functions, outside of the military. I didn’t do the numbers, but I’m telling you, it’s cheaper.” Paul Cerjan, VP of Worldwide military affairs, Halliburton/KBR

“Isn’t it pretty to think so?”

Ernest Hemingway, The Sun Also Rises.

The black heart of outsourcing core, military functions to Private Military Firms (PMF’s) revealed itself yet again this week with the most recent (of many) Blackwater scandals. Blackwater, the North Carolina based private security firm with 1,000 employees currently deployed in Iraq, first came to prominence as the contracted, personal bodyguards of former Coalition Provisional Authority head Lt. General Paul Bremer. Unfortunately, Blackwater’s international reputation has blossomed due to its notoriety warranted by irresponsible and violent acts in Iraq. These incidents, which seem like a recurring, annual trend, emphasize the crucial, prescient need to closely examine PMF’s roles, responsibilities, and most importantly–legal accountability–in the “War on Terror.”

Recently, Iraqi investigations revealed Blackwater employees were responsible for nearly 6 violent episodes this year resulting in 10 deaths and countless wounded civilians. However, on September 27, The State Department, for the first time, publicly stated Blackwater’s security personnel has actually been involved in 56 shootings while guarding American diplomats in Iraq so far this year alone.

Furthermore, federal prosecutors are currently investigating Blackwater employees for illegally smuggling weapons into Iraq and selling them on the black market, which have, ironically, ended up in the hands of organizations that the United States government has officially deemed as “terrorist.” Surely, the U.S. government has reprimanded this organization, cancelled their contracts, and held them accountable for such illegal and negligent acts. Right? Wrong. Reaffirming their undying loyalty to private military firms, The White House, through its cabinet member of choice Condoleezza Rice, said they have, yet again, ordered a review of the government’s handling of private contractors in Iraq, but added “We (the government) havereceived the protection of Blackwater for number of years now, and they have lost their own people in protecting our own people (high ranking U.S. diplomats and ambassadors) - and that needs to be said.” What also should be said is that Blackwater is just one of many private military firms whose illegal conduct has gone largely unnoticed and unpunished under either U.S. or international law.

We must recall The Abu Ghraib Torture Scandal that rocked the headlines in the summer of 2004. Aside from permanently disgracing the United States military reputation in the Middle East, this harrowing episode introduced the world to the catastrophic consequences and weaknesses of privatizing certain military functions to private contractors. The Taguba Report, prepared by Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba to investigate the scandal, highlighted private military firms CACI and Titan as being “directly or indirectly responsible” for the abuses, since they employed 30 or so interrogators who made up more than half of the Abu Ghraib interrogation team. Torrin Nelson, former employee of CACI working as an interrogator at Abu Ghraib, illustrated a grave problem with outsourcing core military functions to the private market when he said, “The problem with outsourcing intelligence work is the limit of oversight and control by the military administrators over the independent contractors.” Other egregious examples include the complete exoneration of private military firm DynCorp (hired as Bosnia’s police force), whose employees were involved in a Bosnian rape and child prostitution scandal. None of the men, including DynCorp’s site supervisor who videotaped himself raping two young women, were ever legally prosecuted, instead they were “sprinting out of the country, away from local authorities.” How convenient.

The lack of responsibility and accountability for private military actors are major areas of concern, since PMF’s are generally subject only to the laws of the market. Specifically, a public military actor, such as an Army Marine, would be court marshaled, dishonorably discharged, or arrested for partaking in illegal activities contrary to domestic and international law. Certain manners of control and regulation would ensure this type of swift punishment and accountability, such as internal checks and balances, domestic laws regulating military force, public opinion, parliamentary scrutiny, and numerous international laws. However, no agency, legislative oversight, or legal recourse truly affects the PMF’s, such as Blackwater, aside from the checks and balances of it shareholders, whose decision to punish or appraise depends primarily on profit incentives. In fact, the army concluded in 2002 that it lacked a “specific identified force structure” and “detailed policy on how to establish contractor management oversight within an area of responsibility.”

Furthermore, there exists a lack of proper monitoring of PMF contracts and employment activities, such as those witnessed at Abu Ghraib. Specifically, both private and public sectors agree on proper monitoring by public authorities, but that would raise contract costs, blur the chain of command, and diffuse responsibility. Most PMF contracts, such as those in Iraq, take place in the “fog of war”–a highly complex and uncertain war time environment, making routine monitoring extremely difficult For example, in the detention facility at Abu Ghraib, the civilian contractors “wandered about with too much unsupervised free access in the detainee area” according to the Taguba Report, which also remarked they (the civilian contractors) “do not appear to be properly supervised.” Also, PMF contract terms are often unspecific, because they lack outside standards of achievement and established measures of effectiveness. The result? The principal defers to the client for progress reports, instead of obtaining up to minute, accurate unbiased evaluations from neutral, professional, public monitoring groups.

The lack of accurate monitoring and oversight has also led to scandals of PMF’s overcharging for un-provided services, thereby undermining one of the main motives for privatization: cost savings. Particularly, P.W. Singer urges clients, such as the United States government, to notice that a firm’s primary aim, that of profit maximization, cannot always perfectly align itself perfectly with their client’s interests. The phenomenon is known as “improper contracting”, illustrated by Dick Cheney’s old company, Halliburton, which operates over 60 sites in Iraq as the military’s main supplier due to $12 billion worth of service contracts. To be fair, any industry contains actors willing to engage in unscrupulous practices, such as overcharging, hiding failures, not performing to peak capacity, and skirting corners to maximize profit and minimize costs. Improper contracting concerns have plagued two companies in particular; Halliburton and the provider firm Custer Battles, who, according to experts, operate “with poor oversight.”

The recent debacle by Blackwater contractors and Halliburton truckers elucidates concern involving the relationship between civilian contractors and military actors, and whether this relationship truly fosters efficient end results. This interdependence of civilian and military actors might result in a lopsided over-dependence. Specifically, if the government places core functions and strategic plans in the hands of a private firm, then the government succumbs to the economic term “ex-post holdup” meaning it becomes “too dependent” and “at the mercy” of the private agent. An analogy could be drawn between the sadist who hovers the carrot on the stick in front of the starving prisoner, knowing full well the prisoner will oblige any indulgence to obtain the precious resource. In Iraq, after a 19-truck Haliburton KBR convoy was ambushed, with six drivers killed, several KBR truckers absolutely refused to drive until assured of improved security. In fact, hundreds of drivers left their jobs and the country. As a result, the United States military, dependent on Halliburton trucks and truckers for supplies, was left with “dwindling stores of ammunition, fuel, and water.” Unlike public military actors, private actors, such as the Halliburton truckers, can break their contracts and leave without fear of court martial or prosecution.

This “abandonment with immunity” not only threatens reliability and confidence in private actors, but also undermines the safety of American soldiers and the integrity of military operations. Barry Yeoman articulates the problem clearly when he states:

Think about it: a private military firm might decide to pack its own bags for any number of reasons, leaving American soldiers and equipment vulnerable to enemy attack. If the military really can’t fight wars without contractors, it must at least come up with ironclad policies on what do if the private soldiers leave American forces in the lurch.”

The competing interests and functions of civilian contractors and military personnel lead to deteriorating communication and harmony between the two sectors. Open streams of communication can help efficiency by allowing private and public sector actors to know of each other’s functional capabilities, resource strength, and locations, especially in hot zones According to Steven Schooner, an expert in government contracting, since the contractors are outside the military command structure there is a lack of coordination on the battlefield, and furthermore “contractors and the military don’t communicate in the same networks. They don’t get the same intelligence information.” Col. Jill Morgenthaler, a spokeswoman for the U.S. military command headquarters in Baghdad, agreed, “There is no formal arrangement for intelligence sharing” however “ad hoc relationships are in place”

Unfortunately, the tragic results of inefficient communication between private and public actors are exemplified by the killings of 4 Blackwater personnel two years ago. These private contractors were killed and mutilated in Fallujah while escorting three empty trucks on their way to pick up kitchen equipment. The State Department’s report states, “Blackwater took on the Fallujah mission before its contract officially began, and after being warned by its predecessor that it was too dangerous. It sent its team on the mission without properly armored vehicles and machine guns. And it cut the standard mission team by two members, thus depriving them of rear gunners.” This tragic incident catalyzed a U.S. military assault on Fallujah leaving 36 U.S. soldiers, 200 Sunni insurgents and 600 Iraqi civilians dead. The United States Oversight Committee on Oversight and Government Reform officially stated that Blackwater “delayed and impeded” a congressional probe of this tragic and unnecessary debacle .

The images of the Iraqi mob burning the Blackwater car and hanging their bodies from the bridge gave civilian contractors chills, specifically the family members of the slain men who filed wrongful death suits against Blackwater for failing to supply adequate guards as promised in the contract. Surprisingly, Marine Col. John Toolan was in command of the region during the tragic episode and had no knowledge of the contractors’ presence in the area due to lack of communication and information sharing. Furthermore, their deaths compelled him to set aside a core military strategy, quelling the insurgency, because he was forced to invade Fallujah and find the murderers. In hindsight, one can only assume an alternative result if there was a formal, consistent stream of communication between civilian contractors, such as Blackwater, and military personnel, such as Col John Toolan. Perhaps lives would have been saved and crucial military functions would have proceeded as planned. However, the lack of communication highlighted problems between the two sets of actors both supposedly working towards a unified goal, but harming their respective progress and interests instead.

So, here we are again in 2007 with another public, international PR crisis involving American PMF’s in Iraq threatening our already maligned reputation and endangering the sovereignty and efficiency of the United States military. History has taught us repeatedly that strict accountability, professional, independent monitoring systems of PMF’s, and swift, public legal recourse for unlawful conduct would not only curb future abuses, but also show the world the United States punishes those contractors who act recklessly and with impunity. History has also taught us that war is profitable and the clarity of accountability and legal ethics is generally always lost in this “fog of war.” And as of September 2007, Blackwater continues its convoy movements on the streets of Iraq. The black heart of American private military firms in Iraq has a strong, healthy pulse indeed.

Wajahat Ali is a poet, playwrite and essayist living in the Bay Area. His widely acclaimed work, The Domestic Crusaders, the first major play about Muslim-Americans was produced by Ishmael Reed. He can be reached at: wajahatmali@gmail.com

Perhaps if we know our enemy, we will know ourselves and become the “good Muslim” and the “good American.” Too bad most of us are sleeping.

By Wajahat Ali, January 16, 2006

	Yawn

Friends. Neighbors. Husbands. Terrorists. Muslims. Darkies.

The last two descriptive nouns (Muslims and Darkies) were added for dramatic effect by yours truly, however the first four (Friends. Neighbors. Husbands. Terrorists.) accompany the faces of four non-Muslim actors playing Al-Qaeda-esque would be “Islamist”, terrorist, fundamentalist, Mohammedan Jihadis (pick adjective of your choice) on the poster for Showtime’s new, not so original series, “Sleeper Cell.”

In the past century, Hollywood’s illuminating portrayal and characterizations of Muslims, Arabs, and token Darkies have comfortably existed somewhere between grossly racist, obscenely simplistic and laughably absurd. Responding to the evolving cultural-political ramifications of the “War on Terror,” the two co-creators of “Sleeper Cell” (both non-Arab and non-Muslim) decided not to board the stereotype train, and instead held auditions for a new, multicultural, United Colors of Benetton- terrorist squad. The hooked, bulbous nosed scimitar wielding ogre from the “Aladdin” cartoon and irrational, darkie Palestinian terrorist has transformed into a more heterogeneous, chameleon personality: the hero (Darwyn), an African American convert to Islam playing an undercover FBI agent infiltrating the terrorist cell; the cell’s leader, an Arab extremist posing as a Jewish security analyst (played by Israeli born Jewish actor Oded Fehr, whose resume includes exotic but heroic Arab darkie in the mind numbingly inane blockbuster “The Mummy”); Tommy, the white convert and obvious John Walker Lindh foil, whose liberal, Berkeley parents failed him; a former European skinhead who finds “peace” by embracing extremist ideology; a Bosnian ‘mujahid’; and finally an Egyptian-American who also conveniently teaches high school science. The kicker? The respective members of this multicultural death squad all seamlessly blend in American society as high school teachers, tour guides, security consultants, and grocery-store employees - basic all American jobs held by average Americans who all happen to be Muslim - and potential holy warriors. The point? Your neighbor could be your enemy. The enemy is here. But where?

(Cue dramatic music, extreme close up, and a flash of thunder).

Structurally, the show resembles a routine fast paced, race against time suspense thriller. Our hero, Darywn, concealing his secret identity as an FBI agent, acts as willing participant in the cell’s increasingly illegal and violent activities with the intent of ascertaining and stopping their final “passport to heaven” suicide mission (releasing toxic, deadly gas in the middle of a packed, baseball stadium to inflict maximum damage to the “infidels.”)

Showtime took a page from Fox’s “24″ public relations snafu and wisely decided to repeatedly highlight that “Sleeper Cell” is not meant to defame or dishonor Muslims and Islam. Before the show’s premier, Showtime aired a 30 minute “making of” special entitled “Sleeper Cell: Known Your Enemy.” Alongside the “rah-rah-rah” publicity boost for the upcoming show, this special included a ten minute not so subtle “We swear we love Muslims, please believe us” segment, which included the translation and proper pronunciations of words such as “Allah hu Akbar” (God is Greatest), “Al Qaeda”, and “Jihad.” Furthermore, the interviewees, composing of actors, the creators, and special advisors, regurgitated the recycled, fossilized theme of “See? We’re showing there are bad Muslims, but also GOOD Muslims, too! We love darkies also!” Robert Greenblat, president of Showtime, recently stated that in the show “there are positive portrayals… and negative portrayals, which is reflective of the world” advocating the need for people to realize the complexities of our social, world climate consisting of “good Muslims” and “bad Muslims.” Noble intentions, indeed, but how to celebrate and highlight the “good” Muslim, when the good Muslim’s entire actions, existence, rhetoric, and behavior are juxtaposed as defensive and offensive reactions to the overwhelming focus on the irrational violence, seething hatred, anti Americanism, and obscurant fanaticism of his “bad Muslim” peers?

Kamran Pasha, one of the hired writers and an American Pakistani Muslim, at least acknowledged this predicament: “Of course the risk always is, even if we show a positive Muslim hero, some people may walk away thinking their next door neighbor is a sleeper cell member.” To say that “some people” might think this is an understatement considering the non stop barrage of negative images of Islam, Muslims, and Arabs has so thoroughly penetrated the psyche of Americans that merely mentioning “Islam” and Arab” elicits a mental image of “terrorism” and “”extremism.” As an example, a recent poll showed that 50% support the President’s controversial secret wiretapping of private conversations, which arguably, lies outside the proper scope and procedure of the 4th amendment. As HL Mencken once wrote, people would rather feel safe than be free. Americans would readily barter their own civil liberties such as the right to privacy, in exchange for the mere illusion of safety and comfort, even though this gamble might jeopardize their guaranteed freedoms. (We are a “freedom loving” country are we not?)

But it’s ok. Why? Because the President is going after “them” and not “us,” even though “us” includes Muslims, Arabs, Hindus, Sikhs, light skinned blacks confused as Arabs, Mexicans confused for Middle Easterners, and pretty much anyone with the slightest, vaguest connection to “questionable activity.” It even includes someone like international renowned peace activist and former singer Yusuf Islam (Cat Stevens), who was denied entry into the US in 2004 after being placed on a “national security watch list.” What were they watching? A repeat of the VH-1 special highlighting Islam’s conversion? Or maybe a hidden Al Qaeda message encrypted in Islam’s famous hit ironically titled “Peace Train?” No one knows, but you can rest assured dangerous elements such as Yusuf Islam, who never received a proper, official reason for being included on this list, are being vigilantly “watched.”

In fact, the Showtime special unknowingly and ironically emphasizes this fear-inducing ignorance while attempting to educate the public about Islam. During the “making of special,” the strong, comforting but purposeful narrator informs us that Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world, with 1.2 billion faithful worldwide, and up to 6 million practicing in America. Then, the narrator’s voice turns deadly serious and foreboding, and the voice warns us “The number of terrorists? Unknown.”

(Cue hysterical shrieking and mass panic now).

One can never know whether entertainment puff pieces like this sincerely wish to “bridge cultures” together by juxtaposing “good minority” against “bad minority” to emphasize the “true peaceful” nature of Islam, or to merely avert a potential PR disaster thus offering this type of verbal fellatio instead. However, this method and technique of subtly advocating an agenda though frivolous entertainment, which masks a potential Public Relations “accident,” is nothing new.

The time tested strategy goes something like this: Identify, Categorize, and Exalt the character traits of the model minority by pitting “the good” minority against the “bad” minority as a learning template for all minorities to follow. Examples: Asians are model minorities compared to Blacks and Mexicans. Why? They are supposedly apolitical, culturally assimilated, passive, successful, and they don’t rock the boat. Blacks, and now Mexicans and Middle Easterners, are violent, aggressive, breed- happy, and anti-intellectual. In the realm of cinema and television, characterizations of “good darkie” include the passive, happy, dancing darkie whose sole existence serves to help white people with their golf swing (Will Smith in “Legend of Bagger Vance”), their romantic pursuits (Aunt Mammy fussing over Scarlett in “Gone with the Wind”), or act as a colorful sidekick accessory (Hajji Baba for Johnny Quest, Kato for Green Hornet, Colin Powel and Condi Rice for George Bush).

However, in their sincere but short sighted attempt at fairness, the creators of “Sleeper Cell” use a serious, practicing African American Muslim, Darwyn, played well by Michael Ealy, whose greatest career accomplishment, according to this writer, is dating Halle Berry (On behalf of all men, we salute you, Ealy). The actors, trying their best with a flaccid script, interject the script occasionally with “Islamic infotainment” pop ups to teach the non Muslim audience about Islamic culture and religion (Jihad, The Battle of the Trench, The 15th night of Shabaan are explained), and also to differentiate b/w the “good” and “bad” Muslim. Sadly, the convenient infotainment mixed inelegantly within the script comes off as unrealistic and trite. Why would a practicing Muslim “fundamentalist” feel the need to explain the significance of the 15th of Shabaan to fellow Muslims who already know? It’s reminiscent of a recent movie “Stealth” where intelligent, military advisors are reminding each other what a prime number is. Again, these robotic conversations remind Muslims of no other Muslims, because no one, and I assume even terrorists, talks like a walking Wikipedia. Furthermore, the 15th of Shabaan (”Layatal Baraa”), a night primarily used for prayer and reflection, is used by the terrorists in the show for the “unveiling” of their terrorist plot. Again, a peaceful, spiritual tradition is juxtaposed to a violent terrorist act.

This methodology of using “good minority” to fight “bad minority” in order to celebrate diversity perpetuates the illusion of inclusiveness and fairness, but in reality puts a colorful, Flintstones, “don’t worry be happy” band aid on the festering sore that is racism, stereotyping and bigotry. Also, it simultaneously forgives and condones certain unsavory and “dirty” policies of the administration.

See? Blacks never had it that bad during slavery or the racist, post Reconstruction South. They just complain too much and want reparations and fried chicken.

See? We always loved Asians, so much so we passed multiple exclusion acts, such as Chinese exclusion Act of 1882, even though the Chinese composed only .002 percent of the nation’s “then” population. (The Act was passed to assuage concerns about maintaining white “racial purity.”)

See? Muslims, Arabs, minorities, and darkies just whine and whine and nag, life is good - relax! Allow for the extension of the Patriot Act, Secret wiretapping, Guantanamo detentions, and racial profiling, which is thriving according to Lawrence A. Greenfield, former head of the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), whose findings released last April without news release confirmed widespread racial profiling of “ethnic” minorities by the police. (Greenfield’s prize for unearthing racial disparities in America? He was demoted - after refusing to delete this information at the behest of the current administration.)

Torture is as common as sliced bread on the hit Fox show “24″, which follows a day in the life of agent Jack Bauer (played by Keifer Sutherland) who successfully foils terrorist plots season after season using abuse, intimidation, and violent threats. Non lethal torture, such as placing sterilized needles underneath fingernails, finds its greatest advocate in lawyer Alan Dershowitz, a self proclaimed defender of civil liberties. His “ticking time bomb” theory asks, “if you had to torture a suspected terrorist to gain whereabouts of a ticking time bomb, wouldn’t you invade that human liberty for the sake of saving thousands of lives?” Even though the ticking time bomb hypothetical is merely that - a hypothetical - it can serve as a “what if” reality that allows for the very real abuses of human liberties and rights, but that’s acceptable, since it assuages us.

In reality, the report of the heinous, S&M-style torture and abuse at Abu Ghraib prison propelled the FUBAR, public relations disaster resulting in the administration, American pundit puppets, and military personnel distancing themselves from such “un-American” behavior as to retain and regain the beleaguered trust and respect from much of the shocked “A-rab” world. You know a situation is bleak when Senators such as John McCain (R-AZ) proactively initiate an anti-torture ban to prohibit the “cruel, inhuman, or degrading” treatment of any detainee in US custody anywhere in the world, even as the administration tried for months to severely weaken the ban’s potency and credibility.

What does the “good Muslim” do? Should he speak out against unfair actions or risk the Scarlet letter of being labeled “apologist” and “soft on terror?”

In this era of mistrust, paranoia, and deception, it’s of no surprise that over 50% of Americans responding to a CNN poll think their elected officials are corrupt. This poll comes in reaction to the revelations of the Abramoff-bribing scandal linking the recently indicted lobbyist to several prominent members of Congress. Moreover, according to the Pew Research Center Poll, only 35% of Americans believe that the news shows they watch and hear daily on the TV, Internet, and radio “get the facts straight”. Who is our modern-day Walter Cronkite, once voted the most trusted man in America? Who is our cultural Jimmy Stewart, reminding us “it’s a wonderful life” after all? They’ve been replaced by single minded ideological puppets, most of whom are now very blond and very leggy, who tow the respective propaganda of their masters at the expense of accuracy, research, and ethics (The New York Time’s convicted journalist -for - hire Judith Miller’s involvement in the Valerie Plame case comes to mind). Are they to blame for the increasingly negative worldview of American foreign policies, or are the citizens themselves to be blamed for their inattention, submissive complicity, and general apathy?

Should the good Muslim stay hidden or should the good Muslim throw his stick in the middle and offer his 2 cents?

For those Muslim Americans constantly pillorying the “media” for painting them negatively, they have to take a hard look in the “say it ain’t so” mirror. Unfortunately, the actions and rhetoric of a few misguided Muslims provide the ideological ammunition for critics and enemies to fire against them. It’s like the Siphai army voluntarily loading their Enfield rifles and handing the rifles over to the British to efficiently use them for the Siphai’s execution. Pakistan recently fuels the “Muslim misogynist” engine with tragic tales of violence and abuse against innocent women, such as Mukhtaran Mai, who in 2002 was the victim of a gang “revenge rape” order by her local village counsel due to criminal actions allegedly committed by her younger brother. President Musharaf and cronies, in a complete reversal of their “enlightened moderation” stance, reportedly banned Mai from traveling to speak about her experience due to fear her tale would tarnish his administration’s mirage of a reputation. The PR disaster that followed only likened Musharaf’’s blind eye to the Bush administration’s “shove it under the bed and burn the bed” mentality which seeks to suppress rather than uncover tales of abuse for fear of negative publicity. Recently, the world witnessed the unrepentant Pakistani Muslim Nazir Ahmed publicly admit to slitting the throats of his three young daughters and their 25-year-old stepsister to “salvage his family’s honor” due to allegations of adultery. Apparently, the Jahil (Urdu and Arabic for “grossly ignorant”) scholars and contemporaries of his local village, akin to several villages unfortunately, piggyback their misogynist, violent insecurities and tribal traditions on the burdened shoulders of a phantom, perverted version of Islam that never existed during the time of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), and hopefully will find no new converts in the near future. The misogyny is parallel to the misuse of “jihad” to condone terrorist actions clearly violating the sanctioned boundaries of ethical combat as permitted by Islamic Shariah (the law). Yet, the single minded, “us vs. them”, confrontational rhetoric (sound familiar, America?), provides the ideological nourishment for politically minded individuals whose zealous spine is supported by a perverted self motivated interpretation of dogma condoning reprehensible acts of violence. (Al Qaeda, Bin Laden, Al-Zawhiri, 9-11, London Subway bombings, Spain + Mali bombings).

Due to the gross inequities exhibited by this arcane behavior by Muslims against Muslims and Non Muslims, words of tolerance, peace, and women’s rights ring cheaper than a flea market bargain. The blatantly xenophobic and prejudiced questions aimed only at Muslim applicants taking the recent German citizenship test provide justified outrage, but can one honestly blame them for asking potential Muslim citizens (The following are actual questions):

“Your daughter or sister comes homes and says she has been sexually molested. What do you do as father/mother/brother/sister?”

“What do you think if a man in Germany is married to two women at the same time?”

It must be comforting for test takers to note that providing the wrong or false answer to these questions can result in a “loss of (German) nationality, even after years, and even if this means that I (the test taker) will become stateless. “

Should the “good Muslim” get Cliff’s notes before the test and make sure to give the correct answer word for word to pass?

Even “hall of fame” liberals, such as Gloria Steinem, a near prophet for some feminists, jumps on the prejudiced bandwagon, recently quoted lambasting Mr. “Playboy” himself Hugh Hefner: “Now’s he’s going around with four young women in their 20s instead of just one. It’s sort of Moslem, actually.” Considering less than 5% of Muslims engage in polygamy, it soothes the stereotypical soul to know a so-called vanguard for civil rights and defender of minority struggles such as Ms. Steinem can use the religious identity of 1.2 billion as a slanderous description of a noted womanizer and lothario. Can anyone imagine the reaction if Steinem had said “It’s sort of Jew, actually”? Hopefully, some sane reporter would kindly suggest a retraction, apology, or at least a clarification. To counter these ignorant, wholesale assumptions with proper Islamic legal foundations and cultural context in an intelligent, rational manner would be revolutionary, especially for a Muslim, who would immediately be deemed “an apologist,” “stealth Islamist” (aka undercover jihadi), or worse, “uppity.”

Instead, the “good Muslim” sits back, mindlessly nods, applauds, and allows the progressive ideologue, whose enmity for Islam is outmatched only by the neo-conservatives, to rail on “Islam” and “Islamists” and “Moslems” backwards mentality and barbaric actions, with evidence amply provided by the Muslims themselves. For true progress, Americans and Muslims should highlight the rampant, yet hidden, abuse of women in their respective countries instead of demonizing one another in an effort for moral high ground and cultural superiority. Nearly one-third of American women (31 percent) report being physically or sexually abused by a husband or boyfriend at some point in their lives, according to a 1998 Commonwealth Fund survey. Next time Steinem hears a domestic abuse case, maybe she should say: “It’s sort of Muslim… actually, well, it’s sort of American, also.”

So, what should the “good Muslim” do? In “Sleeper Cell,” the good Muslim Darwyn infiltrates the cell, tips off the FBI at the last second, and subverts a major national catastrophe. His reward? A beautiful white woman who happens to be a single mother to the most adorable kid in the reality of make believe TV. The show ends with Darwyn praying (incorrectly, I might add - Muslim advisors, where were you?), and peacefully smiling upon his completion. The show recommends, “Know your enemy.” If indeed this is the ideological battlefield for the 21st century, a simplistic “Clash of Civilizations” as heralded by Samuel Huntington, an “us” vs. “them” fight on domestic levels (liberal vs. conservative), and the war field (Coalition of the Willing vs. Axis of Evil), a “good Muslim” vs. the “bad Muslim,” then we must follow the sagely advice of Lao-Tse who wrote the classic “The Art of War.” The most skillful warrior in battle is not only one who knows his enemy, but one who knows himself.

In an era of media manipulation, political scandal, ideological punditry, cultural cinema stereotyping, and a festering environment of distrust and paranoia, who are we, as Americans, in this war on terror? For the Muslims, both American and abroad, if the true meaning of jihad is “struggling against the self-commanding nafs (the id, selfish vain desires) and the true meaning of Islam is “peace” and “submission to God’s will” then why do our hypocritical actions and rhetoric belie the tolerant, multicultural aspects of our religion we supposedly hold dear?

Perhaps if we know our enemy, we will know ourselves and become the “good Muslim” and the “good American.”

Too bad most of us are sleeping.

Wajahat Ali is a playwright based in Northern California. His most recent production, ”The Domestic Crusaders”, was featured on altmuslim.com in July 2005. This article was originally published in KONCH Magazine.

With a sigh of resignation, a fist pumped in rage, and both hands brought together in hopeful supplication, I humbly ask, “Will the Real Muhammad please stand up?”

By Wajahat Ali, June 22, 2005

	Scared to their seats

“Who here is petrified of Muslims,” a Pakistani American Muslim man calmly asked the 90 or so assembled law students of UC Davis King Hall Law School for a special lunch time meeting entitled: “Minority Reports: Representing the Un-represented.” (For lovers of irony: King Hall, named after revered civil rights leader Martin Luther King, counts 1% of all its 2004 incoming student body as African Americans). Given the stifling restraints of self-imposed politically correct nooses people choose to wear, I was not surprised when none of the enlightened raised their hands in response to my question.

“You all are excellent liars. You will make excellent lawyers,” I replied.

“If I wasn’t a Muslim American, and I was your Average Joe America, I would be terrified, petrified, freaked out of my mind about these fun-do-mentalist, terror-rist, extreme-ist, anti-Semitic, Women-hating, tali-boning, bearded, hairy, smelly, leering, oil guzzling, turban wearing, magic carpet flying, Sand niggers.”

And those words, spoken swiftly, coolly, and calmly, connected like a brutal uppercut smashing (or at least partially revealing) their carefully constructed masks of racial “enlightenment.”

These words did not sprout forth from the rage filled, Bile spewing gut of a knee jerking, reactionary loon - a standard description routinely used by “media experts” to publicly pillory any person guilty of “exporting” an unpopular sentiment. Rather, the rhetoric accurately portrayed the image I, as an American, would sincerely hold of 1.2 billion members of the human race in the year 2005 if television media, academic history books, Hollywood movies, and governmental rhetoric were my crash course tutorials on all things “Moslem” and “A-rab.”

Let’s do a summary, shall we? According to the FBI, CIA, and the 9-11 Commission report, 19 hijackers happened to have Middle Eastern backgrounds, 15 of them hailing from our oil-in-ally Saudi Arabia. In retaliation, we have liberated Afghanistan and Iraq, two “Moslim” countries, from evildoers, with Iran, Syria, and an assortment of other hostile, Muslim neighbors on the way. However, our commitment to the Wahabbi-based Saudi regime, mostly responsible for the dissemination of Muhammad Ibn al Wahhab’s puritanical and re-visionary interpretation of Islam, remains firm and intact. Even though the administration eventually conceded Iraq had no tangible connection to the Twin Tower attacks, USA Today reported nearly 70% of Americans believed otherwise. I guess a Saudi is an Iraqi is an Arab is a Muslim… is a terrorist. Oh well, sucks for me - and 1.2 billion other people.

Furthermore, to bolster not only national security but also foreign relations with our Middle Eastern “neighbor”, we hold detainees as “unlawful combatants” to bypass international laws and customs in Guantanamo Bay, which has been called the “Gulag of our times… in violation of international laws,” according to Amnesty International. The administration and its henchmen scoff. The “liberal” media, including Newsweek, is so liberal that it prematurely and embarrassingly retracts its May 9th story at the commands of its superiors, in which it described the desecration of the Quran by interrogators who wanted to rattle detainees by placing the Holy Book in the toilet. (The Administration later conceded there were several valid reports of Quran desecration.) This was another “Spring time” musical for the haters. “Protests in the Islamic world,” exclaimed the headlines! “Look at those barbarians: so violent, so angry!” complained the pundits. “Why do they react so violently? It’s just a book! Jeez, do they take it that seriously?” asked the genuinely baffled reporters. A simple dialogue with any practicing Muslim with even the most elementary rhetorical skills would have revealed, that yes, Muslims do take desecration of their Holy Book seriously. However, I guess allowing an intelligent Muslim voice to emerge amongst the high-pitched, paranoid shrills and shriekings of non-Muslim “experts” would have been truly radical and “undemocratic.”

And will the Real Muhammad please stand up?

But who needs Muslim voices when you have liberal and conservative pundits. Erudite and compassionate visionaries, such as Ann “We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity” Coulter, or academic Bill “I wouldn’t read the book (the Qur’an). And I’ll tell you why I wouldn’t have read “Mein Kampf” either,” O’Reilly, who subtly equate the religious text of 1.2 billion people with the racist, supremacist ideology of one Adolf Hitler. In the lucrative world of Islam-bashing, it’s comforting to know that even conservatives and liberals can set aside their differences to participate in this “Springtime for Haters” musical. For example, “pay for play part time liberals”, such as Christopher Hitchens and Alan Dershowitz are heavily involved in this gig. Dershowitz, promoted as a renowned legal scholar and civil libertarian, wrote the pro “non lethal torture” book “Why Terrorism Works: Understanding the Threat, Responding to the Challenge.” Specifically, in a 2003 CNN interview with Wolf Blitzer, Mr. Dershowitz describes a civilized method of non-lethal torture, such as placing a “sterilized needle underneath the nail,” which he concedes would “violate the Geneva Accords, but you know, countries all over the world violate the Geneva Accords. They do it secretly and hypothetically, the way the French did it in Algeria… I think we would want to do it with accountability and openly and not adopt the way of the hypocrite.” At least we’re openly torturing people now, instead of burying the reports behind the walls of Abu Ghraib; surely, this is a sign of progress. Furthermore, in his essay, “The Rules of War Enable Terror,” Mr. Dershowitz declares “Democracies must be legally empowered to attack terrorists who hide among civilians.” Does this include people of white skin color, such as Timothy McVeigh and members of the Militant Militia? Would Mr. Dershowitz allow this method on, say, Israelis caught spying on the US? Or is this special VIP treatment reserved solely for Muslim and “brown skinned” Americans suspected as terrorists? Even though I’m honored by the lavish attention, I’ll respectfully decline this humble offer.

And will the Real Muhammad please stand up?

Perhaps we must seek the wisdom of Christopher Hitchens, who vociferously supports Bush’s “War on Terror” thereby significantly ensuring a steady stream of Dead Presidents in his bank account and increased exposure and public visibility on television news programs. He laments the use of the word, “Islamaphobia,” which I’m assuming refers to the irrational fear, ignorance and hatred of Islam and Muslims, which he argues is a “cheap propaganda tool” used by “soft defenders of Islam.” Shhh, let’s not tell Mr. Hitchens that last year marked the highest number of harassment, violence, and discriminatory acts against American Muslims ever recorded by Council on American Islamic Relations, with a near 70% increase in hate crimes over 2002, representing a three fold increase since 2000. Or, how about the story of Mr. Gagandeep Bindra, an Indian Sikh, who was called “Osama” and seriously injured by three teenagers found guilty of ethnic intimidation in 2004? And what do we say to an honorary Sikh priest, Rajinder Singh, who was attacked for wearing a turban in New York? I guess you don’t even have to be a Muslim to get beat down like Muslim nowadays. I wonder what Mr. Bindra and Mr. Singh would say to the Hitchens of the world regarding the “cheap propaganda tool” of “Islamaphobia” which lead to their assault? I guess we’ll never know because those voices are never heard.

And will the Real Muhammad please stand up?

The detractors will now predictably chime, “but look, we do allow Muslims to speak. We love Irshad Manji, see? Ha! Fie on you, you cantankerous rabble rouser!” Irshad Manji, like most info-tainment prostitutes, turns her tricks by playing the “pathology” game: where the token minority, aka “the good minority,” is hired to absolve certain individuals, institutions, and accepted norms, which directly contribute to discriminatory practices and racism, by blaming the collective minority as responsible for its own inferiority. Irshad Manji, a self proclaimed lesbian feminist South Asian Muslim refusenik, (if you can say that 5 times in a row you get a cookie and a national book tour), wrote the scholastically inept, “The Trouble with Islam,” offering her unsought wisdom on how to “reform” Islam. Considering she lacks even the most remedial credentials to be certified an “Islamic scholar,” and that her book and politics have been shunned by the vast majority of the Muslim ummah (community), it is utterly not surprising that she, nonetheless, received the “Valor” award from the Simon Weisenthal Center, the “chutzpah” award from Oprah Winfrey, and feminist of the “21st century” award from “Ms. Magazine,” for her brave, enlightened, and “liberal” approach to Islam. Her major reform, you ask? “The major reform for which I am calling,” say Manji, is “all about questioning the divinity of the Koran. This is still the great unspoken taboo within Islam.” This is perhaps a “taboo” because all Muslim scholars, both Sunni and Shiite, hold that believing the Quran as the uncreated word of Allah as revealed unto Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is a crucial aspect of one’s iman (Faith and beliefs). With paid henchmen such as Manji, the real Islam-haters simply sit back, light a cigar, and relax their feet as their Siphai army wages their “crusade” for them. Or, they can always rely on an “expert” on Islam, such as Pat Robertson of the 700 club, who says, with a straight face no less, that Muslims worship “a moon god.” If Muslims are truly the “Phantom Menace” then all these characters must surely represent the “Attack of the Clones.”

And will the Real Muhammad please stand up?

And so we roll on. With nearly 5-8 million Muslim Americans, you would think surely one reasonable voice, representative of at least most Moderate Muslims, would emerge? You would think… incorrectly. So what if Islam is the fastest growing religion in America, with the most rapid converts being African Americans and women? So what if over 75% of the Muslim community is not Arab, with the most populated Muslim country being Indonesia (note: not Arab), followed by Pakistan (note: not Arab)? Who needs their academic scholars, historians, or religious scholars when we have Bernard Lewis, the de facto “scholar” on all things Islam, Arab, and Middle East, who happens to be a white, Jewish European born in London and preserved by Princeton? Then, there’s the The Arab Mind, the bible for the neocons on Arabic/Islamic behavior, written by Raphael Patai, another non-Muslim, European scholar who stereotypically generalizes that Arabs value “honor” above all things, and specifically feel “shame” through sexual humiliation. “At the institution where I teach military officers,” retired U.S. Army Col. Norvell De Atkine writes in the book’s foreword, “The Arab Mind forms the basis of my cultural instruction.” With cultural instructions such as these, the successful interrogatory humiliation of prisoners at Abu Ghraib should come as no surprise.

And will the Real Muhammad please stand up?

So, we return to our modest meeting at UC Davis, where I rattled off some of these references and data to an audience that incredulously looked at me with skepticism for daring to mock their “understanding” of Muslims in America. However, the light bulbs began to click and the untrusting glances turned to nodding agreement when I brought it full circle in light of American history. In America, Muslims haven’t always been the only “outsiders,” the only obscurant anomalies magically appearing amongst the civilized masses, or the only fossil relics of a primitive backwards-Neanderthal mentality. I remind them of the 110,000 Japanese immigrants and Japanese-Americans rounded up, profiled, and interned during WWII. I remind them of a time when racial tensions resulting in Congress passing the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, barring Chinese immigration for 10 years; then extended by the Geary Act for another ten years in 1892, and by the Extension Act of 1904. If I could revisit this speech, I’d tell the Asian American audience members to be careful and vigilante, because they’re next. Check out the cover of the July Atlantic Monthly featuring a stern, black and white photo of a militant Chinese solider with the heading, “How we would fight China” by Robert D. Kaplan. The great challenge of the twenty-first century, according to Kaplan, will be figuring how to shape - rather than fall prey to - “China’s inevitable economic and military rise.” But never fear, or rather keep fearing, because it’s not just those wily Asians or those oil guzzling turban heads or those crack addled black folk - there’s more! Let’s not forget 1798, where the Federalist dominated Congress passed The Naturalization Act, a law aimed at curtailing the citizenship and immigration of the Irish and French who were sympathetic to Republican politics. Last I checked, people of Irish descent are now considered “white,” so the darkies weren’t the only ones who suffered discrimination. I guess the history of racism in America is truly multicultural.

Unlike some of these groups, the Muslims, the Morlocks de jour, have yet to find a powerful voice to help educate the American public as to the realities of the Muslim American existence. Currently, I liken our condition to a puppet head placed on a media screen whose tongue is ripped out and whose strings are pulled by a sadistic puppet master joyfully assailing us left and right by both the “left” and “the right.” The hard “Right” hates the Muslim because you aren’t white or Judeo-Christian and you, representative of the 19 Middle Eastern hijackers, attacked America. The hard “left” hates you because you are part of an organized religion, have certain beliefs contradictory to radical feminist and gay ideologies, and are representative of the 19 Middle Eastern hijackers who attacked America. And you, the Muslim, the terrorist, the extremist, who was once the “Jap,” and also “The Kike,” and also a “Chink,” and even a “Sand Nigger,” can never win because you always have to prove your loyalty. Defend the validity of your faith! Defend the validity of your text! Defend the validity of the entire 1400 year history and actions of a brilliant Islamic civilization which gave us the creation of Algebra, the poetry of Hadrat Jalaluddin Rumi, the best selling poet in America, the Canon of Medicine by Avicenna used by Europeans for centuries, the mind of Ibn Khaldun, the founder of the philosophy of history and sociology, and most importantly the legacy of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), whose name in Arabic means “the most praised,” and is shared by more people than any other name in the world today.

But in this game of modern day dodge ball, everyone looks for an easy scapegoat to hit and assail. The contributions of Muslims to the human race are rarely if ever mentioned. Instead, we get daily reports and images of an enraged mass of people, like the Orcs from “The Lord of the Rings,” frothing at the mouth, inexplicably yearning to destroy America for no other reason save their hatred for all things “democratic” and “western” as outlined by their savage, backwards “customs” and “beliefs.” Is it really surprising then to read the results of the Cornell Report, which revealed that 42 percent of “highly religious respondents [and 27 percent of all respondents] believe that Muslim Americans should register their whereabouts with the government at all times? Not surprisingly, 26 percent of these respondents were unfamiliar with the terms Allah and the Koran.

And so I awaken each day to find the Muhammad’s gradually erased by the “Mo’s,” the Nasir’s slowly replaced by the “Nas’s,” the Salims eradicated by the “Sal’s,” the Murads hiding behind the “Michael’s.” As I encounter the variety of “closeted DL” Muslims at the shopping malls, department stores, grocery shops, and other arenas of daily life, I am reminded of the Korean American “Tammy’s” hiding behind her newly reconstructed eye lids, the African American “Tim’s” masquerading under a surgically trimmed nose, the Iranian American “Ayeesha’s” hoping to assimilate brilliantly with her fake blue contact lenses. And with a sigh of resignation, with a fist pumped in rage, and both hands brought together in hopeful supplication, I humbly ask:

“And will the Real Muhammad please stand up?”

Wajahat Ali, a recent graduate of UC Berkeley, is the writer of ”The Domestic Crusaders”, a two-act play about Muslim Americans with its showcase premiere at the Berkeley Repertory Theatre this July 15th. This article was originally published in Konch Magazine.