“You measure the moral health of any community or society by the way in which it treats the people who at the moment find themselves the weakest and the most vulnerable. And, I would argue, that there is probably no [. . .] population worldwide who collectively is more vulnerable than the Syrian people.”
Leading American Muslim intellectual and director of the Duke Islamic Studies Center Omid Safi was referring to the plight of the Syrian people, as well as the refugee crisis in relation to the rise of ISIS in the region, and Islamophobic sentiments worldwide.
On Tuesday, February 2, Safi spoke to a crowded room at SFU’s Harbour Centre campus in a lecture titled “Muslims in an age of Islamophobia and ISIS: Towards a holistic stance of Justice.”
Before unpacking Islamophobia and the role of ISIS (also known as ISIL) in its most recent proliferation, Safi explained that while it is undeniable that Muslims are being increasingly targeted, the community does not have any sort of “monopoly on suffering,” and advised against “wallowing in victimhood.”
Safi opened the discussion with a quote by Jewish theologian Abraham Joshua Heschel: “Few are guilty, but all are responsible.” He referred to Heschel’s comment throughout the talk in light of the way Muslims in general have been held responsible for the actions of ISIS.
Safi acknowledged the relationship between the recent rise in Islamophobia, especially in Europe and North America, and the phenomenon of ISIS — a group whose barbaric actions are based on a very specific, and highly contested interpretation of Islam.
On the tactics used by ISIS, he noted the music and camera angles used in their propaganda videos are based on hollywood horror movies, like Saw. Coupled with a staggering 80,000 tweets produced by members of the group per day, Safi argued their self-promotion and recruitment as well as the militaristic responses of the “American Empire” has resulted in a condition“as much about over here, as over there.” The production of English propaganda in particular suggests a target audience in Western countries.
However, in order to combat Islamophobia, Safi explained that we must collectively address all issues of social and political justice.
“Justice has to be holistic, and a threat to justice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We have to remember that the conversation about Islamophobia [. . .] is inseparable from the conversation on racism, sexism, militarism, xenophobia, and others.”
He noted there is an onus put on the Muslim community — by media and politicians, among others — to publically condemn the actions of terror: “We hate and condemn, we hate and condemn, we hate and condemn — there should just be an app for that [. . .] you just plug in the name of the latest terrorist tragedy, and it produces for you, your press release.”
However, Safi argued that the language of “hating and condemning”, while important, is far from enough. While few are guilty for terrorist attacks, all of us are responsible for what is happening on the ground, and for engaging in radical change.
With the recent rise of Islamophobia, an entire “made-for-media” academic industry of specialists in “Islamic-inspired terrorism” has emerged and gained popularity with support of mainstream and corporate media. Safi referred to Bernard Lewis and Samuel Huntington, author of the infamous Clash of Civilizations, as some of the pioneers in this industry, and explained that parts of their work have influenced US policy, in some cases being used verbatim. Even more pernicious are “terrorism experts” who opine on places that they have no historical, contextual, or linguistic expertise, but only operate out of ideological pre-committements, often reinforcing the militarism of Western Empires.
Safi believes racism and white supremacy are partly to blame for why Muslims are held accountable for the actions of ISIS while other ethnic and religious groups are not targeted in the same way.
He explained, citing a number of recent shootings in the US conducted by white American men, and instances of state-sanctioned violence — both within the military and law enforcement systems — that acts of terror committed by non-Muslim Americans far outnumber instances of terrorist attacks by Muslims. Acts of violence committed by white domestic terrorists are always set aside as being the action of “lone wolves” (perhaps under influence of mental illness), while the actions of Muslims are cast as being due to a communal responsibility, and emerging from the heart of the Islamic tradition.
“Think about what it would have looked like if President Obama had said that, ‘it is time for white people, it is time for white men, to unanimously, explicitly, forcefully, and consistently, denounce the actions of white domestic terrorism,” said Safi.
“That never happens, and the reason it doesn’t happen is simple: white privilege.”
