Blog


About


Books

 Latest Post: Flash!

Agnostic
A Spirited Manifesto
Available April 4, 2016

   Who is the AT?   Books by LH
  • Agnostic

  • The First Muslim

  • After The Prophet

  • Jezebel

  • Mary

  • More from LH

     

The 50-Minute Video

Posted March 12th, 2011 by Lesley Hazleton

I know you probably don’t have time for this long a video, but for the record, here’s my February 19 keynote speech at the Islamic Center of America in Dearborn, MI — on fundamentalism, stereotyping, and (with suitably Jewish agnostic chutzpah) religion, as well as on the revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia and the effect they may have on American attitudes toward Islam.

The occasion, at the largest Shia mosque in America, was the celebration of the birthday of Muhammad.   The still shot has a somewhat disturbingly preacher look to it, so please tell me I’m not preaching, just talking…

(The sound comes in fully after about 45 seconds.)

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-hTxDvRVlo]

Share this post:  Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
File under: Christianity, fundamentalism, Islam, Judaism | Tagged: Tags: After the Prophet, Bahrain, Deuteronomy, Egypt, gospels, highlighter version, Islamophobia, Kaddish, Karbala, Libya, Nick Kristof, nutshell syndrome, Peter King, Quran, Roger Cohen, St Paul, stereotypes, Tariq Ramadan, terrorism, Tunisia, Yemen, zealotry | 49 Comments
  1. Meezan says:
    March 12, 2011 at 2:01 pm

    Being a Muslim, I have read my share of prophet Mohammad’s (s.a.w.w)biographies and siras but I have to say one of my favorite parts of his life was revealed to me recently by Karen Armstrong’s “Muhammad: A Prophet for Our Time”. When the prophet was 19-20 years old (can’t remember exactly) he liked a girl and wanted to marry her but his uncle suggested that he was not in a good financial position to support a wife. This is not much, I know but that revealed a very human side of the prophet to me. I saw him as a flesh and blood person rather than an ever illuminating, floating in the air, long haired, blue eyed guy, and hence putting everything in a new perspective. His teachings now seemed like really good advice rather than an order. His religion a very flexible and tolerant way of life rather than something you have to have to follow.

    Your words are as always, enlightening.

  2. yusong says:
    March 12, 2011 at 5:11 pm

    fantastic, you are a noble female, i admire you very much.

    • Shishir says:
      March 14, 2011 at 6:43 am

      “a noble female” now what is that supposed to mean?

  3. Jonathan Omer-Man says:
    March 12, 2011 at 5:53 pm

    Congratulations! This is wonderful. And aren’t our similar interests dramatically divergent…

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      March 13, 2011 at 10:58 am

      Or maybe they go round in a huge circle and turn out to be convergent…

  4. Aijaz says:
    March 13, 2011 at 10:58 am

    Bravery is going against the the tide.
    and Lesley has it

  5. Chad Tabba says:
    March 13, 2011 at 6:56 pm

    Wonderful talk Lesley, it brought to mind a couple of ideas I’m thinking of:
    First: Truly, religion’s goal, and the reason religions were formed, was to support the innate striving to be human, to be closer to the ideals of humanity. Thats how and why Sufism seems to be (at least in my mind) in many aspects more similar to buddhism than literal Islam. While Sufism in itself has imperfections as well, I have felt closer to much of what it says (and gnostic christianity) than literal religious belief. The idea that religion and faith comes from the heart, that religion is not about dogma, but about treating others as you would be treated, about forgiveness, and about love (general love not necessarily romantic love). Funny that I would be agnostic and gnostic simultaneously.

    Second: a question/note. I am saddened by the literalist/extremist interpretation of the holy books in general. The holy books have enough subtleness to allow some people to highlight specific words and twist them to support their ideas and take sentences out of context. Why did they have to be so subtle that the average person may be sucked into that literalism? That is my biggest problem with religion; more than trying to believe in a supreme creator, it’s the idea that it takes a higher level of understanding and “brain power” to understand what religion wants us to do. Whats the use if a bigger percentage of people are going to take it wrong and use it to kill each other? Why couldn’t the creator be more clear to lessen the sadness and suffering in the world. Why allow millions to be killed in his/her name? Would love to hear what u think about these 2 points.

    • Aijaz says:
      March 14, 2011 at 6:04 am

      Quran was revealed in single shot on Lailatul Qadr…then it was re-revealed in 23 years with cause and effects and circumstances to make sure people can not misinterperet its verses. The idea that Quran was re-revealed further strengthened that Prophet was warned not to haste but to wait for revelations [….]

      But still we have history and collections of traditions to help us understand the background of revelations in their true spirit. The key to understand Quran is 3:7, which Lesley has pointed out. She is not only eloquent but on the right track. It’s possible she already know more Quran than many of us, she understand the difference between Reader’s Digest and Holy Quran. Sometimes I feel not sure to guide her to some Quranic lead. Chances are she is already there.

      Metaphors are not there to mislead but we can not conceive them in their true interpretations. Tahir ul-Qadri has given a beautiful interpretation on “Judgment Day is near” He says no one knows when is Judgment day but for every individual his judgment day is his death day and tha’ts very near. [….] Metaphor does not mean that we doubt the reality of that day…reality of that Day is literal, nature of that day is allegorical. [….]

      Imam Ali said “You will never know truth and follow the right way unless you know the person who has abandoned it.”

      • Shishir says:
        March 14, 2011 at 7:00 am

        @Aijaz

        If I am not wrong you are Muslim, so I apologize beforehand for possible offense that my remarks may cause you.
        a) It is wrong to believe that Quran was revealed at one go and Mohammed was refrained from making it known at once. There is no real evidence of the fact, an equally plausible explanation is that it was “revealed” as Mohammed was in a position to understand it.
        b) It is also wrong to assume divinity of Quran, it is work of a man for it shows all that is concern of man nothing more nothing less.
        c) The reason why people interpret Quran differently is because Quran is not like a mathematical treatise and hence is ambiguous. The writer of Quran was limited in his/her knowledge because it was limited by what was known at the time. If a religion originates today it will suffer the same limitations perhaps 1600 yrs later.
        d) There can not be just one true religion, if it is can it be demonstrated it is so, unfortunately every holy book claims it and Quran claims it more than others perhaps.

        Now it is possible that I am wrong about some things, and if I am okay. I’ll learn something.

      • Lesley Hazleton says:
        March 14, 2011 at 10:46 am

        Aijaz — It really is time to cool it, and to find some way to acknowledge that you are human, that you do not have a stranglehold on “the truth.” There are many ways to approach this whole matter, and the ways others choose may be as valid and as well-intentioned as yours, no matter how different. As the Quran says, “you have your way, and I have mine.” Mine, as should be clear on this blog, is that there is no such thing as absolute truth, and that it’s precisely this absolutist idea that causes so much conflict. I think it would be far more productive and respectful if you reflected a lot more and judged a lot less.

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      March 14, 2011 at 10:35 am

      Chad — Simultaneously gnostic and agnostic makes sense to me. In fact I sometimes call myself a gnostic agnostic — and some day, will have to figure out more precisely what I mean by that. You may be ahead of me there.

      But doesn’t your second point kind of undermine the first? It seems to assume the existence of an omnipotent creator with a will — that is, a conventional idea of God. Me, I’m really not into the whole idea of religion or of God ‘wanting’ us to do anything. The idea of a “purpose-driven life” is horribly mechanistic to me, leaving no room for what we were talking about earlier: for mystery, for poetry, for music.

      Sacred texts are really only sacred because human beings have made them so — either because they see them as prescriptions for how to behave, or because they find in them inspiration or an invitation to transcend their own limitations. (Well, and a vast range of possibilities between those two, but you get my point).

      • Chad Tabba says:
        March 14, 2011 at 2:26 pm

        Oh, I agree Lesley. There is a contradiction. My second note was simply me just showing that even if I played devil’s advocate (pun intended) on behalf of literalists, I still couldnt excuse how some extremists act and “misquote” scriptures.

  6. Aijaz says:
    March 14, 2011 at 11:51 am

    Lesley

    I do not have stranglehold on truth but I am entitled to hold my views as other humans have it here like shishir, and I am not offended by his/her dissent.

    I see nothing wrong with sticking to my views with a belief they are true.
    Humane side is to share my views without offending others.

    • Aijaz says:
      March 14, 2011 at 12:25 pm

      @Shshir — You are not wrong I am Muslim. Beauty of any discussion forum is disagreement on issues otherwise its nothing more than exchanging the pleasantries, that may feel good but it serves no purpose. Purpose is served when we understand each other through civilized arguments with logic and common sense.

      I am glad you disagree with my position but unfortunately you did not present your argument instead you posted your opinion and what you believe. [….]

      Isa [Jesus] himself never claimed to have come in the fulfilment of the prophecy about the advent of the promised prophet, nor any other prophet, after him did so, except the Holy Prophet Muhammad al Mustafa.[….] The Christian Church had no alternative but to give currency to the belief in the second advent of Isa. Musa [Moses] and Muhammad were the law-givers, whereas Isa was the follower of the laws preached by Musa.

      Similarities between Muhammad and Musa are many. No two prophets, in historical background, resembled each other more than these two. [….]

      • Shishir says:
        March 14, 2011 at 2:54 pm

        @Aijaz — I am glad that you are not offended by my comments. Your argument is that I’ve only stated my opinion. I beg to differ. I have stated my exact position with regards to revealed religions.Be they Islam, Christianity or Judaism.

        Again I apologize if the following offends you. I do not accept the holy books of these religions as the word of God. These religions were created by men, for fulfilling needs of men living in a certain geographical region, living under certain social-economical conditions. The people all had a shared history, hence the similarity and often concurrence in what they say. It is redundant if Bible, Torah or Quran concur with each other or even that they describe same events.

        I live in India, a country with more diversity than the whole of Europe, and it gives me a unique perspective, which is not to say that you may not possess that perspective, leading me to conclude that certain stories will get adopted, absorbed over a long period of time by people so much so that they may even claim ownership of it. I believe that the history of Islam, Christianity and Judaism are so entwined with the history of middle east that to figure what one has borrowed from other would be a difficult exercise. [….]

        I’d say that Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed were closer to being social reformers than they were “prophets” [….] I can assure you, that if Gandhi, Dr.King, Mandela etc had been born in 500 A.D. they’d have founded major religions too. [….]

  7. Nuno Dias says:
    March 14, 2011 at 7:02 pm

    just dropping again by to say: Wonderful 😉

  8. sa says:
    March 14, 2011 at 9:51 pm

    Lesley, are you a Muslim?…..lets start off with a nice easy one 😉

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      March 14, 2011 at 10:04 pm

      Maybe read the blog. I’m an agnostic Jew. Firmly agnostic. Firmly Jewish.

      • sa says:
        March 15, 2011 at 4:53 pm

        Sure, But since you submit to a higher Being would mean that you are in a sense a Muslim i.e. one who submits to God. You may not follow the rituals and traditions ascribed to Islam but your principles, I assume, are the one and same and noticeble in your exegesis of the Quran and you can only do that if you have a clean and conscientious heart which the Quran lays as one of its first principles for understanding the Quran.

        • Lesley Hazleton says:
          March 15, 2011 at 5:26 pm

          I’m Jewish by birth, identity, and interest, not by belief, which means I really, honestly, do not ‘believe in’ or submit to any higher being, whether upper or lower case. As close as possible to “a clean and conscientious heart” (and mind) sounds good enough. And a glimpse, here and there, of the mystery of existence.
          So please, just let me be me.
          Maybe see here for more: http://accidentaltheologist.com/2011/01/18/an-agnostic-manifesto-part-one/
          And here: http://accidentaltheologist.com/2011/01/10/the-100th-post-a-non-mission-statement/

      • Chad Tabba says:
        March 15, 2011 at 5:52 pm

        Why won’t people just let agnostic be agnostic. I just hate it when someone wants you to “pick a side”. I hate when people view agnosticism as weak. Or when someone says “I would respect you more if you were atheist or religious than agnostic”. Why is someone’s personal belief such an issue for everyone to interfere with? I think people miss the idea of what a “jewish agnostic” or “muslim agnostic” means. It means that the person is agnostic from a belief standpoint, but from a birth and family event standpoint, they may follow what their culture has them do. Just like americans celebrate Thanksgiving, I would (as a muslim agnostic) celebrate Ramadan and eid, even though I am agnostic from a god belief standpoint. If someone can’t grasp that concept, how will they grasp the concept of gnostic agnostic?

      • sa says:
        March 15, 2011 at 8:04 pm

        Lesley Hazleton, you are you although Agnostic is someone who is doubtful, non comittal to God or not sure whether you are a theist or a non theist, so I was asking. Point made, looking forward to see what you have to say about faith of people who believe in a God.

        Chad Tabba relax , take a deep breath. No one is out to change you or Leslie. Just trying to understand and now I even understand what a gnostic agnostic theist atheist. Who Knew!

  9. sa says:
    March 14, 2011 at 10:03 pm

    Lesley, whats your take on the following verses:

    Surah 4:34

    Surah 4:157 – 158

    Sorry to put you on the spot but nows your chance to really shine 😉

  10. Lesley Hazleton says:
    March 14, 2011 at 10:08 pm

    Re 4:34, its another of those better-if-you-don’t things. I think what most Muslims think: it may have been acceptable for a man to beat his wife in the seventh century; it sure as hell isn’t today.
    Re 4:157-8: I don’t need to be exonerated of killing Jesus by the Quran any more than I need it from Ratzinger. Though the Quran did beat him to it by 14 centuries.

    • sa says:
      March 15, 2011 at 5:11 pm

      LOL, oh come’on Lesley. You know when you read the ayah/verse 4:,34 it makes no sense. I mean first you tell your wife off, and if she still does not listen you leave her bed chamber and then if she still does not listen you beat her? How about BEATING a retreat and not BEAT about the bush and say cya! The Reformist Quran by Edip Yuksel explains some of the questionable interpretations.

      and now to 4:157. You know this is where you make friends or enemies. So you are wise not to answer it. There is only one interpretation of this verse and that is that Jesus was not raised into the Heavens nor was he killed on the cross but made to appear so (no doubt by some gall and vinegar) and ultimatley survived. I can and have been called a heretic for making such remarks nay whole schools that profess have. At least in Judaism, I can still be a Jew and not believe in the Prophets. Oh well I will leave this one for someone who wants to challenge it.

      • Chad Tabba says:
        March 15, 2011 at 6:03 pm

        I think the idea is not trying to interpret specific surahs without knowing the specific context. I don’t understand what “sa” is trying to prove with these questions. Are you trying to give us proof that there are (for lack of a better word) “unsavory” verses in the Koran that may be used out of context (or in context) to be harmful? Lesley is obviously not saying that the Koran is a book from god, but she is just saying that it gets a bad reputation due to a minority of people who take verses out of context and that it is no more violent than other scriptures. I think that for someone who knows the Koran, that point is undisputable. What the Koran says or doesnt say about Jesus (if he existed to start with) is insignificant.

      • sa says:
        March 15, 2011 at 9:31 pm

        On the contrary @Chad Tabba, that is precisely the point. You have to explore the specific context in order to understand the verse. The problem is that certain verses are intepreted by both Christian and Muslim fundamentalists to advance their own violent agenda as Lesley has pointed out. But I would also argue that traditional Muslim thinking supporting the creation theory is also unfounded in the Quran [….] People then believe that AntiChrist is a one eyed monster running around the Earth and that Jesus will come back and battle it. Some Muslim scholars and clergy believe that a great final battle will take place between good and evil. This type of thinking goes against the ethos of the Quran.

        Also I don’t believe that Lesley is saying that the Quran is violent but rather that God in the Quran discourages violence. I therefore disagree with you that the Quran is violent or promotes violence. As a Muslim, I try not to allow the dynamics of a culture dictate my faith only to then have doubts about a God – but each to their own.

        Finally, all major traditional faiths have prophecized about a future Kalki, Soashoyant, maitreya, Messiah, Jesus, Isa. [….] Over 50% of the worlds population follow a faith tradition that is expecting a savior. If all are waiting then this can only be fulfilled in one person who would unite all peoples and he/she does not have to make a grand entrance by dropping in from the sky. It’s quite possible that this savior comes from the people.

      • Chad Tabba says:
        March 16, 2011 at 8:39 am

        Seems you misunderstood me sa. In my comments about “what are you trying to prove” I was referring to you not Lesley. I didn’t see the point in bringing up that first surah. I understand Lesley and what she thinks very well, and she expresses many things I think about too, but expresses them in a very interesting way.
        As for the other surah about Jesus, reading many sources has showed my that the whole idea of death and rebirth of a savior born of a Virgin mother etc. (in any form, and regardless of each religion’s details about how it happened) is an idea that was also there in ancient Egypt even before Judaism. Its more about rebirth of the human soul after the person finds and understands his/her deep self. Whether there was an actual Jesus and the details of when and how he may have died and if he will return are irrelevant. We need to understand the idea behind the story.

      • sa says:
        March 17, 2011 at 4:14 pm

        I was interested to know what her understanding of sura 4:34 was. Just as she explained Sura 2:191 in her speech, which BTW, is also how Islamic scholars have understood these verses to mean.

        Agreed Sura 4:157 is irrelevent to Lesley.

      • hossam says:
        March 27, 2011 at 4:36 am

        @sa
        i am not posting to discuss this but just to make a correction
        4:157-8 says that jesus was not killed and was not crucified and WAS raised by God

      • sa says:
        March 27, 2011 at 8:15 pm

        @hossam, you just did and here is my response.

        No mistake, verse 4:157 does not mean that Jesus was raised in body or soul. It also does not mean that he was slain or crucified but was made to appear as if he was but actually survived.

        5:117 plainly states that Jesus died a natural death.

        3:144 says that all Messengers before Mohammed (SAW) passed away. That would also include the prophet Isa (AS). Abu Bakr, used this verse to convince the companions on the death of the Holy Prophet that he indeed had died just like messengers before him meaning that no one was immortal.

  11. MZ says:
    March 15, 2011 at 12:06 pm

    Hello Lesley,

    It’s your annoying camera-man here. Yes, we finally got it up and working on YouTube. I want to thank you once again for the talk, I heard a lot of good feedback from our community and we really enjoyed it.

    Peace

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      March 15, 2011 at 12:36 pm

      Hey MZ — thanks for the work! Am amazed and delighted people are watching it. — L.

  12. Nabi says:
    March 16, 2011 at 8:30 am

    Well said Lesley. I enjoyed every minute, even though it did take me two sessions since last night to watch this. I had started taking notes last night on my wife’s laptop but after finished watching it now i decided no to look at those notes but rather comment on just one thing i picked out today and that is when you said not aiming for a perfect future. I personally in my life would rather think of it as not aiming for a Utopia in life where everyone is a perfect muslim but rather aim more for the perfection of truth and justice in human relations. I personally could care less if a person chooses to pray or have an ‘Islamic’ appearance and all the other bells and whistles that go w/ religion. My main concern is that we don’t do the bad/and wrong against each other rather than enforcing the obligatory practices which indeed are only between an individual and God. The prophet was told he was sent to send glad tidings (for the followers) and warning (for the astray) and not to run peoples lives. and not to yearn when they do not accept the correct path because even then only God guides those who wish to be guided.

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      March 16, 2011 at 8:44 am

      A big ‘Amen’ from the unguided!

      • Nabi says:
        March 16, 2011 at 9:20 am

        I take that ‘unguided’ as sarcasm, because no one is misguided so long as they follow the good that is programed in them. After all isn’t that the object of religion to hone us into following our good instincts?

        • Lesley Hazleton says:
          March 16, 2011 at 9:41 am

          Not sarcasm. Irony.

  13. Ammar says:
    March 16, 2011 at 9:00 am

    We love you Lesley, offcource we have time to see your 50 min video.

  14. Ammar says:
    March 16, 2011 at 9:06 am

    Dont forgot people of Bahrain, they in a new Karbala,
    they need help ….. please

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      March 16, 2011 at 4:08 pm

      I wish we could help. It’s a nightmare there right now.

  15. Cosima says:
    March 17, 2011 at 2:59 am

    Lesley I applaud your efforts. I will always have time to listen to your talks. Your wit and intelligence, thoughtfulness and perceptiveness are a breath of fresh air. Also, I just love your hat 🙂

  16. AJ says:
    March 17, 2011 at 5:53 am

    Thanks Lesley

  17. BF says:
    March 21, 2011 at 3:20 am

    As a muslim – thank you for this vdo. In addition to your excellent insight on Quranic expression and meaning – thank you for your political perspectives.

    Looking at conservatives on both sides of the divide as followers of a similar religion is something I have thought about, but never been able to express as eloquently as you have.

  18. Jesus says:
    March 22, 2011 at 11:21 pm

    [This came in to my spam file, but for the sake of light relief, I couldn’t resist running it. After all, how often do you get email from ‘Jesus@heaven.com’? — Lesley.]

    Jesus was song of God and a Jew, all prophets and even Jesus were Jew, God did not send anybody after Christ…its in word of God!

  19. Sarah Conover says:
    March 28, 2011 at 10:33 am

    Really appreciated the considered talk, Lesley. I like that you opened discourse, rather than shut it down. It wasn’t as if I was left with more questions or answers than before, but I was left with more curiosity. Thank you!

  20. Shahrin says:
    March 29, 2011 at 11:27 pm

    Hello Ms. Hazleton,

    I just wanted to extend my heartfelt gratitude for this resonating, and insightful speech. I hope you have tailored similar versions to non-Muslim audiences as well; that being said, I also enjoyed your talk on TED.

    Along a similar vein, as a Muslim college student, I have cast some light in interfaith circles with the intent of enlightening and sharing with others about the dynamics of Islam, as well as its very basic tenets that create its backbone.

    With your positive influence, coupled with inspirational scholars such as the late Edward Said and Karen Armstrong, I have lived gained, in light of Ben Zoma’s teachings, wisdom by learning from all people. This is the kind of plurality that I believe Islam embraces, especially for the imagination (as you referred to in this video). The more I have found myself feeding my soul with discourse, and newly processed information coming from a diverse spectrum, the more Muslim I feel, the closer I feel to the beautiful messages of the Qur’an.

    I’ve recently dedicated myself to writing small pieces, essays to properly establish my thoughts in formal, comprehensive order over concepts and tiers of the Qur’an that I happen to intrigue myself with at a particular moment. I hope that as I continue, I may reach a deeper understanding of my faith. Thank you for being an inspiration, and a contributing catalyst on my religious journey.

    Shahrin,

  21. Lana says:
    April 4, 2011 at 5:51 am

    You inspire me … a beautiful talk

  22. Talia says:
    May 9, 2012 at 9:14 pm

    50 mins! and I thoroughly enjoyed it all. Thank you Lesley! I’m a muslim (the degree of submission or islam, I feel is a very subjective matter but if one has to put a label on it, I think of myself as being quite religious) and that’s why it’s so refreshing to hear someone speak as you do – with the objectivity of the outsider.

    But what I found delightful, in additional to your graceful and inimical style with its wonderful touches of wry humor,was both the empathy and open-mindedness especially as they seem to be rooted in quite a deep well of knowledge which you do not hesitate to divest of its traditional interpretations, and so allow it the flexibility which is its due.

    Dare I say that it reaffirms my own beliefs – which I know is not your intent – but there it is, none the less! Again, thanks!

    Talia

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      June 2, 2012 at 9:49 am

      Thanks Talia. True, not my intent, but there’s a gentle irony to it that makes us both smile.

Anti-Semitism = Islamophobia

Posted March 8th, 2011 by Lesley Hazleton

This past weekend, I spoke to a Hadassah meeting – the Women’s Zionist Organization of America.  The subject, of my choosing, was “What’s a ‘nice Jewish girl’ doing writing so much about Islam?”

The easy answer to the question I’d self-imposed was “Why not?”  A perfectly reasonable answer, perhaps, but not with bigots like Peter King about to begin his witch hunt this week in the form of congressional hearings on the alleged “radicalization” of American Muslims.

The real answer is that it’s precisely because I’m Jewish that I find myself writing so much about Islam these days.  Because as a Jew, I know the dangers of prejudice.  And I can smell it a mile off.  When I hear someone talk about “the Jewish mentality,” I know I’m listening to an anti-Semite.  How else stereotype millions of people that way?   Just as when I read someone like Ayaan Hirsi Ali talking about “the Muslim mentality,” I know — no matter how pretty she is, how soft-spoken, and how compelling her life story – that I am listening to an Islamophobe.

And I recognize that anti-Semitism and Islamophobia are two sides of the exact same coin:  the stereotyping of millions of people by the actions of a few.  That is, prejudice.

So it’s particularly painful, let alone absurd and self-defeating and dumb, to see that some Islamophobes are Jewish.  And equally painful – and absurd and self-defeating and dumb – to see that some Muslims are anti-Semitic.

I have no statistics to say what proportion of Jews are Islamophobic or what proportion of Muslims are anti-Semitic (though I could doubtless make some up and throw them out there with such an air of authority that they’d be repeated ad infinitum until they achieve the status of “fact”).   But the Muslim Brotherhood, for all the changes it has undergone, still distributes The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.  And while anti-Zionism does not necessarily mean anti-Semitism, there is a clear overlap, with a venemous hatred finding its outlet in what is now the more acceptable form of anti-Zionism.

So we need to be clear.  We badly need it.

“Islam” did not attack the US on 9/11;  eighteen people with a particularly twisted and distorted idea of Islam did.  “The Jews” do not shoot Palestinian farmers in the West Bank;   Bible-spouting settlers with a particularly twisted and distorted idea of Judaism do.

The Quran is no more violent or misogynistic than the Bible.  In fact it’s less so.  If you insist, as Islamophobes do, on highlighting certain phrases, then you should turn around and do the same with the Bible, which you will find ten times worse, with repeated calls for the destruction of whole peoples. Only the dumbest, most literal, hate-filled fundamentalist, Jewish or Muslim, takes the rules of ancient warfare as a guide to 21st-century life.

We have to stop this stereotyping.  Now.  All of us.

We have to recognize prejudice not only in others, but in ourselves, Jewish or Muslim.

We have to be able to see that the anti-Semitic trope of “the Jews” trying to take over the world is exactly the same as the Islamophobic one of “the Muslims” trying to take over the world.

We have to acknowledge that an Islamophobic Jew is thinking exactly like an anti-Semite.  And that an anti-Semitic Muslim is thinking exactly like an Islamophobe.

We have to realize that American Jews need to stand up with Muslims against Islamophobia just as American Muslims need to stand up with Jews against anti-Semitism.

Because Islamophobia is, in essence, another form of anti-Semitism, and vice versa.  And it’s in the direct interest of both Jews and Muslims — of all of us — to stand up and confront both forms of prejudice.

In the famous words of an anti-Nazi Protestant pastor during World War II:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out —
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out —
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out —
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me — and there was no one left to speak for me.

Share this post:  Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
File under: Christianity, fundamentalism, Islam, Judaism | Tagged: Tags: 9/11, American Jews, American Muslims, anti-Semitism, anti-Zionism, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Bible, bigotry, Hadassah, Islamophobia, Martin Niemoller, Peter King, prejudice, Protocols of the Elders of Zion, Quran, radicalization, stereotypes, West Bank | 33 Comments
  1. Mykolas Kimtys says:
    March 8, 2011 at 9:40 am

    You go girl!

    • Maisha says:
      March 11, 2011 at 1:35 pm

      I agree with much of what was said in this post and have no problem with a Jew telling others what they know about Islam. That is, when the information is correct and for the most part, Leslie is correct.. But I think that her knowledge may be confinded to Quran, with out much knowledge of Haditn. And it is kind of hard to separate one from the other because Hadith gives a better understanding of Quran. According to Hadith, the “ancient warfare guide” for Muslims is: no killing of women, old people, non combatant men, and children,no killing of priest, nuns, monks etc., no destruction of holy places such as churches, synagogues,no destruction of crop and livestock.
      Considering that war is horror. Since it appears that war is here to stay. Some of that horror of war could be cut if armies and etc. followed this “ancient warfare guide”

  2. Herman says:
    March 8, 2011 at 10:23 am

    What you are stating makes sense theoretically,

    but practically I have seen very, very few people

    ready to stand up with the Jews when anti-semitism

    appears. Almost no Muslims.

    • JJ says:
      March 14, 2011 at 8:16 pm

      BS

      http://www.thestreetspirit.org/Feb2005/mosque.htm

      http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/4/4/854131/-Film-on-Arab-Schindlers-who-saved-Jews-in-WWII-premieres-at-MOTLA

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmEw5M-xK64

    • JustBob says:
      March 15, 2011 at 6:51 am

      Agreed Herman. We should hope more people, especially the Left, speak out against Holocaust denialism that has gone so far where nation states actually sponsor conferences on whether the Holocaust actually happened or not.

      To this day, I have yet read one single person condemn the anti-Semitic beliefs in many parts of the world who believe New York Jews were in on 9/11 and did not show up to work that day.

      Most would rather ignore Antisemitism. This type of selective silence proves some are only interested in pushing their agenda rather than combating all forms of hatred and paranoia.

  3. Tea-mahm says:
    March 8, 2011 at 11:04 am

    This is great. Wish you could have this conversation on CNN. Tm

  4. Adila says:
    March 8, 2011 at 4:04 pm

    Lesley, I like you. You have sight.

    🙂

    Herman, I’d like to think I’d stand.

  5. sa says:
    March 8, 2011 at 10:20 pm

    Islam is the only faith tradition that declares “There is no Compulsion in Religion”. Its founder, Prophet Mohammed, created the Charter of Medina which protected the rights of both Muslims and non Muslims alike living in Medina. The 47 clause document contains all the characteristics of the preamble to the US constitution. Similarly, the charter of privileges gave protection and rights to the St Catherine’s Monastary in Alexandria, Egypt. This was all necessary because Islam was founded in an unjust and hostile environment and giving protections and creating protectorates was necessary. Today these cultural dynamics are still at play as are geo political issues and other complexities around the world.

  6. Lynn Rosen says:
    March 8, 2011 at 10:58 pm

    You nailed it. You simply nailed it.

  7. Meezan says:
    March 9, 2011 at 1:21 am

    Hear hear.

  8. Yazid Erman says:
    March 9, 2011 at 2:16 am

    I totally agree with you Lazely, and i am a very strict Muslim! 😉

  9. Kamil says:
    March 9, 2011 at 3:13 am

    I’m a Muslim who currently live in London. I studied Jewish Philosophy and the holocaust for A-Levels when I grew up in Hong Kong. I absolutely agree with everything you wrote in this blogpost. I am shocked by the level of anti semitism I find in the communities today and I guess you will find the same vice-versa.

    Thank you for blogging this and hopefully we can all wake up and understand each other’s struggles in so many decades (and centuries). I think what the Muslims are going through today in the western world (at least here in Britain) has a lot of parallel with the Jewish emancipation in the 1800s and we have a lot to learn from each other.

    May Allah swt bless you for your work.

  10. Aijaz says:
    March 9, 2011 at 4:27 am

    I don’t know how much anti semitism is anti Israeli and anti Jewish…Islamophob is anti Islam, not anti Muslims or anti extremism.
    Whoever had invented anti semitic had cleverly covered all the zionist and Israeli crimes under one flag of anti semitic and then made it a Taboo.
    A stand up comedian in Chritian majority USA can easily make Jesus the butt of his joke but before making anti semitic remarks he will think twice.

    IMO theres no equivalence between anti semite and Islamophob.

    I have no idea Iran is making nuclear bomb or not but if they were making bomb then its the result of propaganda under Islamophob.
    After 1979 revolution Iran ban on all nuclear activities but then they were forced into 10 years war with western supported Sadam.
    War mongers in arms industry are loaded with money so same fear was used but as shiaphob.

    In this video a Muslm is protecting a Jewish couple from Christian mob…Had he known their ID would he still protect them….answer is simple…..YES.

    No Christian, no Muslim, no Jew is devoid of human feelings….all are made with same heart with bloody flesh which pump harder when witness human misery.
    The only difference is greed for power and money…that desire of few benficiaries is trying hard to keep hostage the human feelings and to supress extra pumping of human heart…

    The key is fear and promotion of fear through propaganda.
    The war mongers in the name of religion are used as a tool…the beneficiaries are power brokers and Arms industry and Arms traders and media. I am afraid all three primary beneficiaries are zionist based, the secondary beneficiaries are Arab Tyrants, Kings and Dictators.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrjMl3ISkTE&feature=related

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      March 9, 2011 at 7:38 am

      Alas, you demonstrate my point. Anti-Semitism is a Zionist ‘invention’? You might want to read some history.

      Meanwhile, this from Jean-Paul Sartre, as relevant I think for Muslims as for Jews: “If Jews did not exist, anti-Semites would have had to invent them.”

      • Aijaz says:
        March 9, 2011 at 8:29 am

        I think I am getting closer
        Perhaps anti semitism is just like Taliban and Al Qaida, as no one literally knows who they are and what they are but everyonee knows why they are.

  11. Aijaz says:
    March 9, 2011 at 4:41 am

    Drawing U.S. Crowds With Anti-Islam Message
    By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
    Published: March 7, 2011

    FORT WORTH — Brigitte Gabriel bounced to the stage at a Tea Party convention last fall. She greeted the crowd with a loud Texas “Yee-HAW,” then launched into the same gripping personal story she has told in hundreds of churches, synagogues and conference rooms across the United States:

    As a child growing up a Maronite Christian in war-torn southern Lebanon in the 1970s, Ms. Gabriel said, she had been left lying injured in rubble after Muslims mercilessly bombed her village. She found refuge in Israel and then moved to the United States, only to find that the Islamic radicals who had terrorized her in Lebanon, she said, were now bent on taking over America.

    “America has been infiltrated on all levels by radicals who wish to harm America,” she said. “They have infiltrated us at the C.I.A., at the F.B.I., at the Pentagon, at the State Department. They are being radicalized in radical mosques in our cities and communities within the United States.”

    Through her books, media appearances and speeches, and her organization, ACT! for America, Ms. Gabriel has become one of the most visible personalities on a circuit of self-appointed terrorism detectors who warn that Muslims pose an enormous danger within United States borders.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/08/us/08gabriel.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&emc=eta1&pagewanted=1&adxnnlx=1299610962-NGSvRzNNaIjSLZ0vYlUW9Q

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      March 9, 2011 at 7:43 am

      This article is linked to in the original post. Always a good idea to read before commenting.

      • Aijaz says:
        March 9, 2011 at 8:24 am

        forgive me for I am as clumsy as I could be.

        I try hard again to find the link about this NYT article or anything about Brigitte Gabriel in original post but miserably failed.

  12. Anti-Semitism = Islamophobia | :: MUSLIM DIALOGUE :: says:
    March 9, 2011 at 8:20 am

    […] http://accidentaltheologist.com/2011/03/08/anti-semitism-islamophobia/ March 9th, 2011 | Category: MUSLIM DIALOGUE, […]

  13. Lavrans says:
    March 9, 2011 at 10:19 pm

    It’s funny as I was just having this very argument with a friend who happens to be… a vegetarian.

    No, it’s not a joke. He was talking about how meat is bad, and brought up a video that made some valid points (animals raised on mega-ranches take lots of land and more resources than the average vegetable), and a lot of points that are subjective and meant to tug at a person’s visceral response (animals are tortured and killed just for human pleasure). My argument that the argument was self-righteous was taken as an indictment of vegetarians as a whole.

    The politics of religion is the same action. That video that was posted isn’t the view of all vegetarians, and while most vegetarians would laugh at it and agree with some of the points, not all are vegetarians for the same reason and not all subscribe to the same beliefs; not all will find the entire argument True. Groups always carry with them a certain amount of prejudice against other groups, the question is really to what degree and whether it’s a prejudice that diminishes their ability to empathize with that other group.

    What we have, in my opinion, is too many people who just can’t get past the concept that any large group carries many opinions. What one person or one part of that group says isn’t necessarily a Truth for the entire group, and very likely to be seen by some as ridiculous.

    I maintain that the most dangerous food out there is processed food. Factory food. Food that is barely recognizable in any part as what it came from. The soda that’s really a corn and oil distillation. The steak that’s softened by force feeding an animal that is kept alive only by the use of large amounts of antibiotics.

    I can’t help but see that as so true of the politics of religion. What’s dangerous isn’t the raw belief; the stories and tales that seeded the tree that has grown up and spread across the world; no, what’s dangerous is what’s been done when a branch is taken from the tree, chopped and processed into a new thing that is barely (if at all) related to what it was distilled from.

    That danger is to the tree itself, in that it adds something that may be a poison. That danger is to the tree in how it is seen by the person on the outside; if they don’t know what’s been done to make that processed, transformed thing, then they may ascribe all the dangers as inherent within the tree itself (rather than the processing).

    And that is the danger to those outside that tree’s canopy; ignorance and doubt are easy forms of belief that are hard to eliminate. If you’ve been taught that the tree is poisonous, it may take a stronger act than most could muster to risk grabbing a piece of fruit from the tree and eating it. Even when done, it will still take a long time to overcome that prejudice. See how many people still think that tomatoes are poisonous.

  14. Aijaz says:
    March 11, 2011 at 5:32 am

    Things could be more complex than complicated as presented by Lavran.
    Simplicity is the beauty of arguments and this simplicity adopted by all religions because religion is for masses not specifically for bunch of intellectuals.

    Theres nothing beyond scope of right and wrong…a complex or complicated aspect of right does no make it wrong.
    All the animals slaughtered for food are fast multiple and has short life span…when reaching a natural death their disposal may cause a serious problem and environmental mayhem.
    Torturous slaughter is valid argument by a vegetarian….every living thing has to endure the pain of death one day…people should be careful to cause minimum pain when slaughtering as much as they can learn scientifically….unfortunately none knows the pain of death and pain of slaughter.

    Disintegration of bones and losening of muscles with diminish senses as growing age, I believe is a mercy on mankind thats about time when natural death is happened.
    So in my guess natural death for all living things should be less painful than slaughtered.

    All of these are God sanctioned slaughters so argument can not be restricted to science only besides science can not prove for sure the amount of pain caused in both kind of deaths.
    A vegetarian can not love the rats and roaches damaging his clean home and furniture.
    Probably he will show mercy on a pop up snake in his household to capture and hand it over to wildlife…but roaches and rats he is forced to kill with poisonous torture.

    A very valid example of Tree and its branches was given…..A branch when seperated does not seek its ID but try to make its own ID…An ID which has no roots is the root cause of all problems.

    Religiously if we take Tree as one God and branches as group of people and leaves as people then it will be easy to understand the concept of Unity of God.
    The one leaf or branch which detach itself from Tree is living a life of its own not a borrowed life.
    This owned life knows its origin from father’s seed to mother’s womb then in being and vanished in darkness…this being which probably achieved status of self during the course of life but after death it becomes a number which was added once but now reduced.
    A self which is not more than a number is not different from an ant which was crushed to death among its flock and this is the result of a branch which try to make its own ID after seperated from Tree.

    Let me present an example to emphasize the simplicity of religion through simplicity of its personalities.

    One day an old woman, who had for many years heard of the greatness and magnificence of the Prophet, came before him. She stood tongue tied in awe of his presence. The Prophet, softly, kindly and simply took her by the shoulder and said, “Why are you afraid? I am the son of that Quraish woman who milked sheep. Who are you afraid of?”

    Though I am thankful to Lavran for generating such a beautiful idea of Tree and its branch to help me elaborate my views

    • Lavrans says:
      March 11, 2011 at 4:25 pm

      True- things are always more complex. The main point to the vegetarian is that it isn’t any more unnatural for people to eat meat than any other omnivore or carnivore.

      Complexity comes in with the addition of civilization (that is, living in cities). Then you have many food pressures- we know of no groups that were voluntarily vegetarian until after the introduction of cities and religion- and all of the reasons for a vegetarian diet are religious.

      With wealth comes the ability and freedom to choose whether you’re a vegetarian or not, and with that also comes other reasons for being a vegetarian- and yet, almost all of them still center on man as apart from and different from nature.

      That’s also a commonality of the monotheistic religions (well, most modern religions; at some point religions move from man being a special animal, but still an animal, to being something other than an animal); man as apart from nature.

      Thus, one’s food becomes a choice. This is part of the “processing” I mention. That thought is as much a process as removing the fat from milk or monofarming corn. The thought process is no more “natural” than a million acres of corn, or the idea that man is not just another animal.

      Continue the processing of thought and action and you can come to the point where raising an animal with the intent to eat it becomes morally suspect and the vegetarian starts thinking that the raising and killing is a callous act done in order to sate a taste for killing. When it’s really not that different from raising carrots with the intent to eat them; the main difference is that we see the animal as closer to us and, therefore, closer to god.

      Why is it not possible for the carrot to have a soul? If it does, is it morally problematic to eat the carrot? Or would that God have designed the various animals and plants to do and eat what they do?

      Again- it’s not the act, but the process by which one gets to that act. Very much like in religions, where all of the religions have the same basic rules and tenets, yet the process used to interpret them gives rise to all these opposing sects that become willing to denigrate or do violence to any “other”.

      That, to me, is the genesis and life blood of prejudice. Ignorance fueled by a processed idea that labels itself a morality while demanding an action in violation and opposition to that morality.

      • Aijaz says:
        March 12, 2011 at 1:28 am

        All things are true in their essence perhaps you mean Truth about certain things is complex.

        Truth of the matter is we don’t know how many things are living things of the total things known to us.
        Anything which breath has a life and subject to feel the pain.
        All the plants,vegetables,fruits,grass etc are living thing…sign of their life is they breath they get their naurishments and they grow….if not eaten mercilessly by a vegetarian in their lifetime they also die as they rots and thats their natural life span.
        A vegetarian, if he must eat apple then he has to wait until its rotten or in other words completely dead to cause no pain to partially alive apple.

        I see no difference between growing apples for the purpose to eat when they are ripe and still fresh and breathing AND breeding animals for the purpose to slaughter and to eat.

        Grass is alive as long as its green and it subject to feel pain also….a proud vegetarian feel no remorse to tread torturously on a lviing thing.

        All this fuss to complicate the simplicity of life into unnecessary complexity is the result of not having real issues faced by humanity and they are in abundance.

        Some says stones also breath but this much I know from Quran that everything living or dead to our knowledge praise God but we know not.

        I have no knowledge how other things are alive other than Human Being…are they ensoul or not…perhaps Lavran has more knowledge, he may enlighten.

        Soul in Quran is described as Amre Rab “Decree of God”.
        Amazingly in whole Quran nowhere plural is used for soul….so this is singular act of Al-Mighty to enliven a thing.
        Self(Nafs) has plural in Quran which is exclusively for mankind not other living things.

        So we are composed of three things…Body,soul and self.
        When soul leave the body we are dead and we are left with body and self…in few hundred years body also disnitegrate..the only thing left is self which is resurrected on judgment day and according to Islamic faith body testify against the self which it used to carry.
        The reality of mankind is SELF which is accountable not the body and soul.

  15. Muslim says:
    March 19, 2011 at 7:37 am

    Why do people claim anti-semitic as only referring to jews..
    semitic is relating to people who are of the groups that speak of Afroasiatic languages that includes Akkadian, arabic, Aramaic, Ethiopic, Hebrew, and Phoenician.

    so american english speaking jews are NOT semitic
    but on the flip side.. christian and muslim arabs alike in the middle east are ALL semitic.. so if you discrimate against a middle eastern muslim, you are being anti-semitic

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      March 19, 2011 at 8:50 am

      Strictly speaking, of course, you’re quite right, but such a definition then excludes the 80% of Muslims who are not semitic. You also ignore the fact that, though many centuries removed, Ashkenazi American Jews are semitic in origin, while Sephardi Jews are semitic in culture too.

      I can see the ironic appeal of saying “Hey, we’re all semites,” but A. it’s not so, and B. challenging prejudice on the basis of strict definitions really evades the problem, and could even deepen it by leading to the weirdly racist game of trying to figure out what percentage of blood origin — a quarter? an eighth? a sixteenth? — makes someone black or Jewish or Arab.

    • hossam says:
      March 20, 2011 at 1:40 am

      Why do we have to discuss what semitic means instead of discussing the actual issue, you are right in saying that semic peoples are not only jews, but to answer your question, the term anti-semitism has been coined and generally accepted to mean prejudice towards jewish people. Would it make a difference if it was called anti-judaism or anti-jew or jewophobia instead?

      we can also spend time criticizing the term islamophobia rather discuss the actual issue

  16. Maisha Liwaru says:
    March 20, 2011 at 8:59 am

    As an African American Muslim, I say we can spend our time comparing and licking our wounds and arguing over semantics or we can come together for human rights. Rather than anti Semitic, Islamaphobia, racism etc. why not use the words humane and inhumane.

  17. Rachel Thomas says:
    March 22, 2011 at 12:58 pm

    This is a really good article, and as a Jew I also see Islamophobia as the flip side of anti-Semitism. I shudder when I see members of my government targeting “the Muslim community” as a whole.

    I do want to make one suggestion/correction to your article. You seem to imply in paragraph 6 that The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is about anti-Zionism. However, it also speaks directly about Jews without connection to the modern movement of Zionism. I think the word “Zion” in the title refers not to that modern movement but to the biblical term for Jerusalem. It’s important that people should know that The Protocols is primarily anti-Judaism, not anti-Zionism.

  18. Mazhar says:
    March 30, 2011 at 12:49 am

    I am extremely grateful for the way you have presented this issue. And I am touched by your ability to speak out with the analogy of Anti-Semitism.

    I have read Quran for more than 25 years. Yes it speaks about how jews interacted
    during the time of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), but it also speaks about polytheism,
    about christians and about muslims who accepted islam but in their heart planned against the Prophet , and they are the worst [….] If you truly understand Quran, ALLAH’s displeasure is on any one who violates his instructions and that of his Prophet…may that be a muslim even. So I agree with you that to take as all Jews are worst is actually UN-ISLAMIC.

    In fact one of the wives of Prophet Muhammad was a Jew who accepted Islam….and sometime people would say that to her (that you were Jew) and Prophet (PBUH) would show great displeasure on such people. And one of the great companions of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was Abdullah-Bin-Salam (blessing of Allah be upon him), who was a jew who accepted islam. And once a funeral of Jew (who had not accepted islam) was passing by and Prophet (PBUH) stood up in respect…and some people differed and the Prophet (PBUH) said his account was with Allah and as a fellow human being he demonstrated respect on his passing away.

    I am sorry the comment became lengthy…But I really wanted to appreciate your
    approach and share mine. We need more like you on both sides to put and end
    to this cycle of hatred, blame and violence.

  19. Anand Rishi says:
    April 15, 2011 at 3:14 am

    Well, any hate campaign against any community is deplorable. Those at its receiving end must fight this menace unitedly.

    Sorry for delayed comment. I am a new comer to this very sensible blog.

  20. Rabeeh Zakaria says:
    May 5, 2011 at 12:52 pm

    As a non-radical muslim, I salute you .. We need such a balanced look

    Thank you

  21. Zack says:
    May 16, 2011 at 6:49 am

    To the author of this article.

    Great article. I have posted it everywhere.

    Keep up the good work.

    God bless your kind soul

  22. Anti-Semitism = Islamophobia - Page 11 - Political Wrinkles says:
    January 28, 2012 at 11:47 pm

    […] Posted by Coyote Source: Anti-Semitism = Islamophobia The Accidental Theologist She makes good points No kidding. Some of us know this. And nice people like you come along […]

The Antidote to 9/11?

Posted February 16th, 2011 by Lesley Hazleton

There’s been a ton of punditry about what the Tunisia and Egypt revolutions mean for America, and you can bet there’ll be several tons more.  But I suspect its biggest effect is yet to register, and that is psychological.  Because these two revolutions – achieved through determinedly non-violent action – constitute a radical, positive challenge to the politically manipulated atmosphere of fear and paranoia about Islam.   In fact, as New York Times columnist Roger Cohen put it, 2/11 may be the perfect antidote to 9/11.

Too optimistic?  I think not.  There’s a very good chance that we’re due for a major paradigm shift here in the United States — one that seemed unimaginable just a few weeks ago (and one even a congressman like Peter King, head of the HUAC-like committee due to start ‘examining’ the supposed radicalization of American Muslims (“are you now or have you ever been an American Muslim?”), might have to take into account).

What’s happening all over the Middle East challenges the crude stereotypes of “Arabs = riots.”  Of “Islam = terrorism.”  And above all, of Islam as somehow fundamentally anti-democratic.

These stereotypes run deep.  Think of the scenes shown in the American media from the first week of the Egypt uprising.   A close-up of 200 people prostrated in prayer, excluding the tens of thousands who stood behind them, not praying.   A protestor holding a poster of Mubarak with horns and a Star of David drawn on his forehead – the only one of its kind, it turned out, in the whole square.  Or a few days later,  the replay after replay of Molotov cocktails – “flames lead” being the mantra of TV news – reinforcing the image of rioting Muslims out of control, “the Arab street.”  It was exactly the image Mubarak was aiming for.

Thus the pumping up of the Muslim Brotherhood as a threat by both the Mubarak regime and conservative western pundits, as though the Egyptian protesters were extraordinarily dumb and naïve.  As though they were not highly aware of  how the 1979 Iran revolution was hijacked and perverted.  As though they couldn’t see the fundamentalist regime in Saudi Arabia or the Hamas regime in Gaza.   As though the Brotherhood itself were unanimously stuck in the 1950s mindset of ideologue Sayyid Qutb.  As though the only way to be Muslim was to be a radical fundamentalist.

Thus the surprise in the west at the sophistication of the Tahriris, when “the Arab street” turned out to include doctors and lawyers and women and IT executives (you could practically hear the astonishment:  “you mean there’s Muslim Google executives?”).

Thus the continually stated fear, stoked by the regime and by conservative pundits, that the protestors would shift from nonviolence to violence – that the nonviolence was merely a cover for some assumed innate propensity to violence.

Thus the slowness to realize that the old anti-West sloganism had been superseded, and that this wasn’t about resentment of the west;  in fact that it was about the very things President Obama had talked about in his speech right there in Cairo in June 2009 – about democracy and freedom.

In short, what we heard and saw in those first few days was the modern version of Orientalism:   The idea that the ‘Orient’ – that is, the Middle East (it should come as no surprise here that the geography is as weird as the idea itself) — is an inherently violent, primitive, medieval kind of place.  Or as right-wing Israeli politicians have been endlessly repeating for decades, “a bad neighborhood.”   And that the responsibility of ‘enlightened’ westerners and despotic leaders alike was to keep these benighted people under control.

But as the uprising went on into the second week, something began to change. Nobody at the blog of Seattle’s alternative newspaper The Stranger, for example, which one would have thought the first to support any kind of uprising, even bothered to comment on it at first.  When they began to, it was with their usual weary stance of pseudo-sophisticated cynicism.   But by the day after Mubarak unleashed his goons in Tahrir Square, when the protestors’ response was to turn out in larger numbers than ever, even The Stranger gave in to excited support.   How not, when millions of people stood up to repression and dictatorship in the full knowledge of what they faced if they failed – arrest, torture, and death?   Would you have such courage?  Such determination?

So here’s what I saw here in the States:   more and more Americans abandoning their unconscious Orientalism in favor of stunned admiration.

And that’s the beginning of something new, the very thing Obama declared twenty months ago in Cairo:  respect.

Finally.

Share this post:  Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
File under: Islam, Middle East | Tagged: Tags: Cairo, Egypt, Google, HUAC, Islamophobia, media images, Mubarak, Muslim Brotherhood, Obama, Orientalism, Peter King, respect, Roger Cohen, Sayyid Qutb, The Stranger, Tunisia, Wael Ghonim | 10 Comments
  1. Sana says:
    February 16, 2011 at 8:07 pm

    There’s hope in the air…. Thanks Egypt!

  2. Lana says:
    February 17, 2011 at 1:42 am

    Thanks Lesley … i do wish there is hope …

  3. Mary Sherhart says:
    February 17, 2011 at 1:57 pm

    Hope is a rare commodity these days. Thank you Egyptian people!

  4. Adila says:
    February 18, 2011 at 6:27 pm

    Wonderfully written. Exciting times indeed.

  5. Shishir says:
    March 14, 2011 at 6:41 am

    I am sorry I don’t agree. The long term effects of these revolutions are still not known. It remains to be seen if Muslim Brotherhood will not form a parallel government or at least have extra constitutional authority. It remains to be seen if these countries will demonstrate same eagerness in throwing out religious fundamentalists. It also remains to be seen if a truly secular democratic country would arise out of Egypt.

    The evidence from the past suggests that secularism
    and Islam don’t gel. Even with the charter of Medina.
    I believe you are a scholar of Quran, or at least you’ve studied it, I’d suggest you also study the history of Islamic kingdoms and Islamic republics.
    Lets have a look at Iran and Pakistan, these are two
    countries which are “democracies”, but have you ever looked at their blasphemy laws or their constant
    persecution of religious minorities. I wouldn’t say that
    it doesn’t exist in India, and we claim India is a secular democracy (I laugh every time I say that). But at least we are not sponsors of international terrorists, may be because we are poor but yet. I also don’t understand how one can suggest that Islam is
    tolerant especially given that it doesn’t make any distinction between state and religion. If a believer
    and non-believer are not same in the eye of religion
    they can’t be same in the eyes of the state either, under such circumstances if the Islamic forces come to attain majority and it is indeed a distinct possibility in Egypt or Yemen or Bahrain etc do you think they’d
    transform these places into true secular democracies ? Do you think the support for Al-Queda or Hamas etc would reduce if pro-Islamic groups came to power?

    Yes, the revolution was by people oppressed, yes it was about respect but what will it end in? Russian revolution was not about socialism or Marxism it was
    about a set of people oppressed – where did it end up ..in Stalin and 50 years of cold war, countless lives lost in Vietnam, Afghanistan, India/Pakistan, Iran/Iraq.

    I am not an Islamophobe, I love what Islam and Islamic culture has done for my country for the world. I just think that time has come for all of us to reexamine these religions (hiduism/islam/christianity/judaism) and their tenets and if required throw them out.

    • hossam says:
      March 19, 2011 at 11:08 am

      @Shishir

      you are right the long the term effects of the egyptian revolution is not yet known, and whether or not the Muslim Brotherhood will “take over” like many people are afraid (noting that they are not running for presidency) but what does that have to do with Islam itself?

      The point is not to judge a religion by what people do;
      Islam is not what Muslim people do
      Judaism is not what Jewish people do
      Christianity is not what Christian people do

      do not judge Islam by what fundamentals or extremist or terrorists do
      do not judge Judaism by what the IDF does and what Israel does
      do not judge Christianity by what George bush did

      Even though i would prefer a secular egyptian state, who’s to say that secularism is a test of a religion?

      there are many states with christianity as a state religion (e.g. Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Finland) and there are also secular, muslim majority states (e.g. Azerbaijan, Gambia, Kosovo, Mali, Senegal, Syria, Tajikistan, Turkey, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan)

      can you let me know what evidence suggests that islam and secularism do not “gel”?

      as for blasphemy laws, they are always controversial, they are still being debated even in highly democratic european countries, some of which do have laws against blasphemy, of course the penalty there is not as tough as in pakistan, but again are we judging a religion based on what is the penalty on blasphemy? i don’t think you can post a cartoon in a german or danish newspaper with of a big nosed man with a star of david on his forehead and his armed wrapped around the world. so where is the freedom then?

      • Shishir says:
        March 24, 2011 at 3:27 pm

        I beg to differ.

        Would you disassociate communism from what Lenin, Stalin, Mao etc did you would not? If you read Marx, and he makes a very interesting read, you’d realize that his communism differs a great deal from what was actually practiced but do you make the difference?

        Religion is what majority of religious people do, nothing more nothing less. Because if you take away that and get down to essential core of it you’d find almost all religions are essentially the same.

        I think secularism is a test of a religion because it tells me whether or not this religion shows signs of growth (not in number of people of that faith but in true growth) in its philosophy via debate via exchange of ideas. I would say my definition of secularism is a secularism of ideas with absolutely no space for public god/religion.

        Why do I say Islam and secularism don’t gel? Well simply because it makes no distinction between borders of state and religion in public/private sphere. If you are going to quote me the charter of medina, I’m going to point to you that Mohammed created it only to ensure he had sufficient force and followers. It was a political treaty, and as such had nothing to do with religion of Islam. You realize it almost immediately when you look at the subsequent 10 years.

        As to your point about blasphemy laws, I don’t think in European country someone is going to issue a fatwa against you if you drew anything ..but in an islamic republic..??

  6. Shishir says:
    March 14, 2011 at 9:05 am

    Ms. Hazleton, I am not sure I said anything in my comment which could be construed as offensive, but my comment seems to have been censored/deleted.

    I’ve no issues with that really, I just wish to know what
    is the commenting policy.

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      March 14, 2011 at 10:57 am

      First-time commenters need to be approved by me, and I’m deliberately not online 24/7, thus the delay. Re commenting policy: I’m fine with all points of view, no matter if they directly oppose my own, so long as they do not denigrate others. If that happens, I will ask the commenter to stop doing this. If they then do not stop, I will, however unwillingly, deny access.

  7. The Antidote to 9/11? | IslamiCity says:
    September 26, 2012 at 6:39 am

    […] The Accidental Theologist – Lesley […]

Order the Book

Available online from:
  • Amazon.com
  • Barnes & Noble
  • IndieBound
  • Powell's
Or from your favorite bookseller.

Tag Cloud

absurd agnosticism art atheism Buddhism Christianity ecology existence feminism fundamentalism Islam Judaism light Middle East sanity technology ugliness US politics war women

Recent Posts

  • Flash! September 1, 2019
  • “What’s Wrong With Dying?” February 9, 2017
  • The Poem That Stopped Me Crying December 30, 2016
  • Talking About Soul at TED December 5, 2016
  • ‘Healing’? No Way. November 10, 2016
  • Psychopath, Defined August 2, 2016
  • Lovely NYT Review of ‘Agnostic’! July 14, 2016
  • Playing With Stillness June 22, 2016
  • Inside Palestine June 20, 2016
  • Virtual Unreality June 6, 2016
  • The Free-Speech Challenge May 23, 2016
  • Category-Free April 20, 2016
  • Staring At The Void April 13, 2016
  • Sherlock And Me April 3, 2016
  • Hard-Wired? Really? March 22, 2016
  • A Quantum Novel March 9, 2016
  • This Pre-Order Thing March 4, 2016
  • The Agnostic Celebration February 29, 2016
  • The First Two Pages February 23, 2016
  • Two Thumbs-Up For “Agnostic” February 10, 2016
Skip to toolbar
  • About WordPress
    • WordPress.org
    • Documentation
    • Support Forums
    • Feedback