For the love of God!

Have you heard of PeaceTV? It's 24 hour Islamic TV station broadcasting in India and Saudi Arabia and also available to U.S. and U.K. audiences. If you're Islamically and politically aware, I can understand your reservations. Though I knew it would probably air fairly conservative Islamic interpretations since it airs in Saudi, I actually liked the idea enough that I gave it a chance. There are definitely some very informative programs, though not very entertaining. It would seem that its lack of entertainment value conveys either a lack of commercial motive or a lack of flair for entertainment. I can look past that. Though there are shows featuring speakers openly claiming to be "fundamentalists," I was glad to hear the phrase " Islamic fundamentalism" reclaimed from the context of violence into one of edification. What's wrong with fundamentals?

But, from a seed of distaste for the network founder and star, Dr. Zakir Naek's pretentious recitation of chapter, verse, and line number with every Quranic reference, I began to wonder if something bothered me about his version of Islam and I had, for the sake of giving the network a chance, channeled my distaste into this triviality.

Dr. Zakir Naek has been accused by feminist Muslims of misogyny. This is to be expected since literal/orthodox interpretations of the Quran have, not to be repetitive here, a long historical tradition of refusing the reformist tradition suggested in contextual readings. In fact, misogyny is practically a prerequisite for ultra-conservative Muslims (and of every other ultra-conservative, it seems). That it can be found in Naek's interpretations and is present in his programming (in which grown women are only ever members of the audience) is just reflective of Naek's target audience. Of course, it simultaneously proliferates misogyny but I think it's more of a side effect. I like that people are speaking out against this misogyny because feminist Islam needs proliferation, and more of it, in my opinion. Still, to a certain extent, I can look past the misogyny, too. Questioning your religion is one of the scariest things a person can do to themselves psychologically and I understand the desire, especially of a religious person, to rely on what appears to be authority.

There is a show featuring, surprise!, Dr. Naek that has so far invited Christian and Hindu religious leaders to debate with audience questions. Not answer questions, but debate the answers. Rhetoric and logic are very big with Naek but, these being Socratic in age, it is not surprising that a network steeped in highly orthodox Islam favors them. Excuse me if I sound impatient here but if you're surprised that Muslims are into logic at all, your brain may be a subject of highly European conditioning. Or, you may be unaware that the Quran commands people ask questions, which are usually formed using logic, and learn. However, the debates in which religious leaders of other faiths are engaged, especially those initiated by Naek fanatics, never have the aim to learn. They only aim to prove themselves correct and those in disagreement incorrect.

When a Hindu guru, Sri Sri Ravishankar, asked the audience not to replace love with logic in their dealing with others, specifically others from differing faiths, a woman from the audience asked how a Muslim, then, is to talk someone known to be plotting terrorism out of it without using logic. To this, the audience clapped. However, the Hindu leader's reply, that people who are at risk of becoming terrorists need a serious amount of love, fell completely flat. This, I refuse to look past.

In, "In A Different Voice," by Carol Gilligan, and in various other essays by feminist writers, the argument that misogyny can be a symptom of a preference for logic and vice versa is compellingly made. The overarching argument questions the surprisingly prevalent idea that unlike logic, compassion is not considered manly. But even logically, it doesn't stand that an effort to distance Islam from terrorists reveals a demonstrated lack of compassion. I have to agree with Sri Sri Ravishankar wholeheartedly on this one, PeaceTV.

Don't Ask Me About 9/11.

"Islam is the religion of peace," has been the slogan on the lips of every Muslim American confronted by non-Muslims over the subject of Islam, terrorism, and 9/11. I know everyone is tired of talking about 9/11 but I have an important point to make, so hear me out. The utility of the saying is in its implication that those employing violence are not Muslim. Yes, the word Islam means "peaceful surrender" but does that make Islam the religion of peace, theoretically or otherwise? While Islam does not preach violence in the name of Islam, it also does not preach non-violence thereof. In fact, though judiciousness is a prerequisite, violence is commanded as a means of self preservation. In this context, saying, "Islam is a religion of peace," is just an inadequate defense to an unjust, racist accusation.

The intended audience of 9/11, was, in fact, supposed to include American Muslims for the same reason that Muslims feel compelled to disavow violence. It was a message to all Muslims, especially young Muslims, encouraging them out of lives of "humiliation" and into violent jihad against The West. Long story short, al-Qaeda protests the feeling that Muslims need to say, "Islam is a religion of peace," and would rather have us blow everyone, including ourselves, to pieces. However, the purveyors of al-Qaeda's message and those who openly received it, are just as oppressive as the circumstances they reject, if not more so, and towards their own people. This makes sense, since there is no hope, positivity, or compassion in their message, not to mention that it injudiciously condones violence. Summarily, though it took about ten years, al-Qaeda's message has been definitively rejected by Muslims around the world. Surprisingly, American (read: George Bush's) anti-Islam and European anti-multiculturalism's (which are really the same thing) "you're either with us or against us" sentiment has been much closer to al-Qaeda's message than anything any God fearing, sanity appreciating Muslim believes. (1)

In America, how do us American Muslims reconcile al-Qaeda's message and the American anti-Islam sentiment, both of which draw a black and white picture of east and west, specifically Islam and the west with our undeniably Muslim and irrefutably American lives? To do so by retreating into either Islam or western life styles would only prove the distinction correct, not to mention prove that we are cowards. But what happens when people say things like, "Islam is the religion of peace," which is nearly as misleading as saying it is the religion of violence, to answer the question, "Are you with us or against us?"

To that question, which is rarely asked directly, I see no way to choose either option. The gut response from me comes in the form of more questions. Questions like: Who are you and what army is "us"? Do you know how many Muslims there are in America? How many died in WTC? Did you know there were Muslims in America before 9/11 brought it to your attention? Did you know there were Muslims at all before 9/11? Do you have any Muslim friends? Were you with or against Timothy McVeigh? Did your ancestors own slaves? Did your ancestors drive Native Americans off their land? Do you believe in witches? What the HELL do you think gives YOU the right to ask ME that question?

Maybe that's a little passive-aggressive. It would probably be best to simply say, "You have no right to ask me that question." Either that or just walk away.

It's not a matter of making sure your hands are clean before you point your finger, it's just the fact that you are pointing a finger. I have no qualms with honest questions about Islam. If you want to talk about religion, I'd be more than happy to participate. Muslim Americans, myself included, have chosen to take up the responsibility of creating forums for people who want to know more about Islam. But if you approach me randomly and it has anything to do with violence (or patriarchy) I don't have sit around and have you patronize me.

Back when no one knew why 9/11 happened, it would have been perfectly acceptable for a Muslim to say, "Listen, I have no idea what's happening either and honestly, I'm pretty scared, too. All I know is that this has nothing to do with my faith," and answer any questions about Islam with anything other than, "Islam is a religion of peace," said to absolve the guilt put there by the accuser/"questioner." But now that everyone with any modicum of responsibility should know better, it is absolutely unacceptable to demean a Muslim American and make them feel guilty or responsible about anything 9/11 related by even asking them about it. If you do, al-Qaeda's message could be seen as reasonable and the world we live in is a terrible place.

Finally, though I know she might never see this, I'd like to thank my co-worker Christina for the solidarity today. I really appreciated that.


(1) Aslan, Reza. "The Fire This Time: The Long Term Effects of 9/11." Los Angeles Review of Books, September 9, 2011. http://lareviewofbooks.org/post/9988565795/the-fire-this-time