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.
