Where's the Apology?: Unintended Erasure Is Still Real Erasure

Earlier today, a visibly public voice in anti-Islamophobia movements made a mistake. Arsalan Iftikhar, editor of the Islamic Monthly, a quarterly print-publication with a regularly updated online presence, wrote a piece on the nature of Islamophobia in the United States. His intent, from what I gather reading the article, was to point out the "fashionability" of Islamophobia in US-American culture. It seemed as though he was attempting to point out its increasingly acceptable and popular nature in light of the actions of public figures such as Donald Trump, Bobby Jindal, and John McCain, and the blatantly racist and Islamophobic treatment of Sudanese-muslim student Ahmed Mohamed in Irving, Texas.

Unfortunately, his intent was not his impact because of a sizable mistake - the title.

Iftikhar titled his article "Islamophobia is the New Black." When I first saw this title image pop up on twitter, my eyes widened and my heart began to race. "Not again," I thought. "Are we really playing oppression olympics?" I was livid that another "brown" muslim was erasing the presence of black voices within Islam, and playing into the narrative that the experience of being black in America was the same as being a (non-black) muslim. 

In spite of the fact that every iota of my being wanted to flip out and walk away from the computer in a frustrated rage, I read the article. I wanted to be able to point out where his arguments were flawed, call him into accountability with precision. But as I read, I realized that his article was not necessarily implying that the struggle of muslims in the US is replacing or similar to the struggle of black people in the country. For better or worse (in my opinion, worse), there was virtually no mention or analysis of the historical racism experienced by black people in this country. He was resolutely focused on pointing out the popularization of Islamophobia in the US and nothing else.

And that only makes the impact of his egregious error that much worse.

Iftikhar was so focused on making his point about the "fashionability" of Islamophobia that he completely ignored the context within which he was writing. He was exclusively looking through his lens, his interpretation of an historically and culturally-significant word within a particular phrase, that he overlooked the harmful impact his attempt to be "catchy" would bring about. In his attempt to be culturally-relevant, he was actually so irrelevant and unaware that he hurt more people than he helped. He did not consider the real impact of his word choice, and in doing so he exemplified an ongoing flaw among muslims who are not black. He failed to see the impact of his actions in a society where anti-blackness runs rampant and is still denied by so many. He failed to see how he, as what some may call a "brown" muslim, acted in a way that ignored the aanti-blackness that runs rampant and is denied within muslim communities as well. He did not consider the impact of his original title phrasing- further isolating black muslim voices and creating a sense of competing oppressions that erase their presence. 

Yes, "____ is the new black" is an expression about fashion. But in today's world, where race and racism are rightfully at the forefront of efforts for liberation, how we use even seemingly unrelated expressions matter. In a world where the phrase "Black Lives Matter" is often met with the erasing response "All Lives Matter," Iftikhar's title is unintended but nonetheless real fuel for that racist fire. In using an expression that includes the words "the new black" - an expression which replaces/erases blackness - he unintentionally but actually activates the psychology that tries to erase the particular struggle of black people in the US. It may be a phrase that speaks about clothing, but in the hearts and minds of the people who hear/read it, it will be heard/seen as a phrase that speaks about race. His title uses a phrase that plays into the super-cessionist "our oppression is cooler than your oppression" narrative, a narrative that puts two different (though undoubtedly intersecting) struggles in competition. In using this word "new," he sought to equate his particular experience with one that he, and anyone else who is not black in the US, can never know. Arsalan Iftikhar tried to use wit to get attention, and his lack of nuance and critical thinking around word choice destroyed any credibility to his contribution. While the content of his article makes interesting points, his title choice was a culturally-obtuse, context-inappropriate, and racially harmful one. And, thankfully, he did change it.

But he continued to ignore the harmful impact of his words.

I was glad to see that in an updated version he changed it to "Islamophobia is Cool in America Today." But I remain disappointed and frustrated by his reasoning why. In his updated version, Iftikhar includes an "author's note" that explains his intent behind the original title, and his reason for changing it. But nowhere in that paragraph of text does he apologize. Nowhere does he mention that the change followed numerous voices, many of them black muslim voices, which called him out for using such an inappropriate and harmful title. Nowhere does he admit that he made a mistake, and that he was called-in to account for it. And in doing so, he perpetuated the erasure of black voices in Islam. He perpetuated the super-cessionism that his original title encouraged, by not pointing out why it was in fact problematic. He remained focused on his lens. 

And he was horrifically defensive about it.

In his note, he wrote that "as people who are well-versed in the English language are quite aware, most people know that the phrasal template “_________ is the new black” is generally used to denote something that is “cool” or “fashionable” within society today." This could not be more insulting to the people who called him into linguistic, cultural, and racial accountability. Rather than take responsibility for his own mistake and oversight, he puts the blame on the very people he harmed. He implies that anybody who read his original title as having harmful implications for black people and black muslims in the US was not "well-versed" in the English language." What does this do except to further deny and erase the voices of the people he claims to be speaking in support of? It saddens me that he felt the need to discredit the linguistic capacity of his critics, of his community, when he was the one that committed the error. Why not acknowledge the reality, apologize for his oversight, and then move onto his article? Wouldn't that have been more effective, more honest? He missed an incredible opportunity to acknowledge differences and intersections in liberation that require care and accountability to the most marginalized in our communities.

But he still has a chance.

I offer this lengthy, and yet still incomplete, critique of Iftikhar's actions as a reminder that he still can shift his behaviors and attitudes - we all can. I hope that he, as a writer and editor, considers the real impact of his words that go beyond his lens of intent. I hope that he, that all of us, recognize that liberation means being accountable to one another. And being accountable means having the humility to acknowledge our mistakes and learn from them. I hope Iftikhar writes another piece - one that reflects how he made mistakes that caused unintended but real harm, and how he will strive to be stronger, more inclusive, and more racially-conscious in his future efforts. Humility, forgiveness, and learning are all integral to justice and to Islam - I hope that he, that we, will come to embody that possibility.

The Danger of "Free Speech" When Not All Are Free

It is time for some much needed nuance. In the wake of the horrifying attack on the offices of Charlie Hebdo that left twelve people dead, I’ve seen a range of responses. Some were from Muslims who condemned the attack, describing it as a total violation of Islamic values, and even creating their own pieces in solidarity with the artists who were killed. Others have been from Muslims that say the attack was deserved because the artists at Charlie Hebdo were engaging in blasphemy. As a Unitarian Universalist Muslim and a seminarian, I personally agree with the former category. Nobody should have their life violently taken away. No one should be murdered for the expression of an opinion. I mourn the deaths of the individuals who were killed, and believe that the gunmen who were responsible committed an abhorrent act. However, these contrasting responses are not the ones that I want to more deeply explore at the moment.

In the past two days, there have also been multiple voices talking about the principles of free speech or freedom of the press as they pertain to the work of Charlie Hebdo’s artists. Some have praised the inflammatory content of the satirical newspaper, describing it as necessary and justified blasphemy. Others have encouraged people to not only continue looking at these comics, but to also keep sharing them, because no religion should be so uptight that it can’t take a joke. Some have gone so far as to criticize the papers and individuals that are refusing to reprint or editing images from Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons, saying that they are letting terrorists win. These voices claim that, yes, the artists at Charlie Hebdo make blasphemous comics, but that the offense to religious extremists is necessary to end exactly the same violence that would follow, to address the same hypersensitivity of belief that prevents such free expression.

I agree that engaging in potentially life-threatening blasphemy is something that can help in countering the oppressive religious perspectives that make it life-threatening in the first place. And artists play an important role. Look at the work of comic-activists like Negin Farsad and Dean Obeidallah, part of the “The Muslims are Coming” tour and film, whose jokes could offend people of any religious ilk. Their comments have been labeled as blasphemous and are definitely not welcome in certain Muslim circles, but they make them anyway. They “blaspheme” to help people both within and outside the Islamic traditions move away from oppressive interpretations of Islam that call their actions blasphemy in the first place. Perhaps what helps give more weight to their views is that Farsad and Obeidallah are Muslim. They are not speaking as outsiders, but use humor and wit that addresses the faith community to which they themselves belong. They not only have the ability to tolerate blasphemous jokes – they and others who are Muslim are making them too.

But with Charlie Hebdo, the situation is different. It is not a simple matter of religious blasphemy or making sure Muslims learn to “tolerate a joke." The people claiming that the work by Charlie Hebdo’s artists is needed are taking a dangerous position. Yes, its allegedly blasphemous content discredits the minority of individuals who use their interpretation of Islam to commit heinous acts. But focusing only on how its blasphemy promotes freedom of speech minimizes an important reality: many of these cartoons are just flat out racist. Their caricatured images of Arab-looking men, whether they are meant to be images of the Prophet Muhammad or members of the Islamic State, echo images that have been created for decades to mock and dehumanize Arabs and Muslims alike. In John Espito and Ibrahim Kalin’s book Islamophobia: The Challenge of Religious Pluralism, scholars Peter Gottschalk and Gabriel Greenberg analyze the history and content of cartoons depicting Muslims. Their work shows that the caricatured images distributed in the Western world are oversimplified and “too often slip into stereotypes of Islam.” Physical attributes are generalized and exaggerated, such as clothing (a kufiya/gutra) or facial features (large noses and extensive facial hair). They are often depicted in the midst of sinister acts, or turned into excessively effeminate caricatures to illustrate “political seductiveness.” In Charlie Hebdo, these stereotyped traits are also used, and often combined with homophobic imagery, moving their cartoons away from justifiably blasphemous, to dehumanizing and further marginalizing already oppressed populations.

What makes these cartoons even more dangerous is that their satirical illustrations become the predominant images in the mind of a populous with limited exposure to the people and traditions whom they caricature. The rich diversity that is found within both Arab and Muslim populations (which are not synonymous) is completely ignored, replaced in the Western mind by belittling images that conform to, rather than challenge, overly-simplified norms. The actual majority of these objectified groups are erased – they do not exist in Charlie Hebdo’s world. Moreover, whatever valuable impact the cartoons’ blasphemous content have on challenging oppressively-conservative interpretations of Islam, it is obliterated by their reinforcement of any pre-existing Islamophobia, xenophobia, and racist views towards Arabs. These days in particular, Europe faces a disconcerting rise in public demonstrations against Islam and immigrant populations, and the images in Charlie Hebdo only solidify the stereotypes that fuel them. (See this post on “The Hooded Utilitarian” for more examples of cartoons). As a popular media source, Charlie Hebdo has the power to present a nuanced analysis of the Islamic traditions, but instead caters to existing and harmful stereotypes.

This reinforcement of degrading stereotypes is compounded by the fact that the creators of these illustrations are mostly white, European men. Their illustrations come from a place of racial and cultural privilege, and totally disregard the continued effects of colonialism, white supremacy, and Christian hegemony in our world. The cartoons of Charlie Hebdo ignore the oppression that Muslims have encountered in Europe since the Middle Ages, when European Christians saw Muslims as underdeveloped apostates, yet still appropriated elements of Islamic scholarship and culture. They conveniently overlook the white European imperialism that colonized early Arab civilizations, and which continue to exert control over “Middle Eastern” and Muslim nations through military operations and political destabilization. Perhaps most difficult to realize is that this continued impact of colonization has actually contributed to the development of religious extremism – the same extremism that carries out attacks like those in Paris.

Let me be clear. I do not in any way blame the victims of this violent attack. They did not deserve to die in such a brutal way. I vehemently condemn the actions of the gunmen in the attack on Charlie Hebdo’s offices. Their violence has done a great disservice to the majority of Muslims who would never approve of their decision to commit murder to silence an opinion. It is horrifying that artists were murdered for expressing their views on dangerous interpretations of Islam, no matter how controversial their approaches might have been. The actions of the gunmen go against the calls for reason and the appreciation of difference in Islam, and these artists paid the ultimate price as a result. As more information comes out about the victims of this attack, it is clear that the shooters were not really acting on behalf of any faith. Several of the individuals killed were not even part of the Charlie Hebdo staff – one of them was Ahmed Merabet, a 42-year-old Muslim police officer. Not even the people negatively impacted by these cartoons were safe from the attackers’ violent extremism. The gunmen were not defending anything – they were attacking everyone.

I genuinely mourn the taking of these artists’ lives. They were more than just cartoonists, they were human beings with stories and lives more detailed and complex than we will ever know. But the violent nature of these individuals’ deaths does not mean I must celebrate their harmful actions along with their laudable ones. Freedom of speech and a free press are indeed important elements of a progressive society, but they come with the caveat of responsibility. The cartoons of Charlie Hebdo are not sacred ground for ensuring the freedom of expression. They are a reminder of how easy it is to forget that free expression does not occur in a power vacuum. They are a reminder that having a platform to say something inflammatory requires the serious and critical consideration of what that platform is built upon. Having the power to offend or criticize different people and traditions necessitates the constant evaluation of the structures within which we all live.

What those rushing to defend the cartoons of Charlie Hebdo fail to recognize is that freedom of speech is not the freedom to perpetuate marginalization. They deny the oppressive realities that give this paper the power it has. Those who are blending pain over these artists’ horrific deaths with the importance of freedom of speech ignore the reality that several of the paper’s images perpetuate stereotypes that dehumanize already marginalized populations. Those supporting Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons are forgetting that they are produced within a white Eurocentric context that promotes racism and Islamophobia, while totally ignoring the centuries-long oppression of Arab and/or Muslim peoples. It is possible and necessary to come together to support the right to free press and free expression in the wake of this attack. But it is also possible and necessary for us to acknowledge that not every action and image produced by those killed falls within those categories. We can mourn this tragic loss of life, but we must also do so responsibly.