Jerusalem Post: American Jews often come to the defense of Muslims

American Jews often come to the defense of Muslims
By RAY HANANIA
08/11/2010 JERUSALEM POST

Recent example involves the ‘Ground Zero Mosque’ where

the leading Jewish defenders were passionate in their defense.

When was the last time leading Arabs or Muslims came to the defense of Jews? I say that because a phenomenal thing happened in America last week. American Jews were divided, but still led the national debate on whether or not a mosque should be allowed within blocks of “Ground Zero,” the spot where the Twin Towers collapsed under a terrorist assault on September 11, 2001.

Although the Anti-Defamation League flip-flopped on the issue, supporting it on principle and then later opposing it on emotional grounds, it did so with attempted gracefulness.

The ADL noted the intense emotions aroused and said that Muslims seeking to build the mosque should recognize the feelings of those who lost family, relatives and friends in the al-Qaida terrorist attack.

Yet the ADL was just one of the American Jewish voices addressing the controversy; the leading Jewish defenders were not only passionate in their defense but stubborn about the principle involved.

Among those voices was one of the country’s leading Jewish politicians, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, whose eyes welled up with emotion while he declared that Muslims have every right to build a mosque, just as Christians and Jews could build a church or synagogue nearby.

Bloomberg was consistent in May when he declared: “I think it’s fair to say if somebody was going to try to build a church or synagogue on that piece of property, nobody would be yelling and screaming.

The fact of the matter is that Muslims have a right to do it, too.”

Bloomberg remained principled on August 3, when he insisted: “Let us not forget that Muslims were among those murdered on 9/11, and that our Muslim neighbors mourned with us as New Yorkers and as Americans. We would betray our values – and play into our enemies’ hands – if we were to treat Muslims differently than anyone else. In fact, to cave in to popular sentiment would be to hand a victory to the terrorists – and we should not stand for that.”

ONE OF America’s leading Jewish American writers, Chicago Sun-Times columnist Neil Steinberg, expressed shock at the ADL flip-flop, and unhesitantly defended the right of Muslims to build a mosque near Ground Zero.

Steinberg concluded a column addressing the issue, saying: “I expect more from the ADL.

Given the history of Jews being tarred as an evil foreign presence, I thought we’d be not quite so fast to condemn others based on the same non-reasoning. There are lots of Islamic terrorists, sure, but there are also lots of Jewish bankers. Both are still offensive stereotypes, still slurs, and I can’t see how what one group of 19 Muslims did in 2001 should prevent another, completely separate group of Muslims from building a religious center in 2010. How is claiming that any different from saying I can’t join your country club because the Jews killed Christ? The ADL thinks the Islamic center spoils the healing process? Well boo hoo – the Jewish kids spoil the Christmas pageant too, but they aren’t forced to stay home. That’s how America works. We adapt. I thought the Anti-Defamation League understood that, but I guess I was wrong.”

Steinberg also asked the question many may have asked quietly. If two blocks is too close to Ground Zero, how far away would be acceptable? Six blocks? One mile? Ten miles? These were but a few of the principled and courageous voices raised in defense of the Muslim American community as the “Ground Zero Mosque” controversy raged. These voices stood in stark contrast to the hysteria of mainstream Americans who packed the media with assertions that Islam is “evil” and that all Muslims support terrorism.

I hope to one day hear Arab and Muslim voices speak in defense of the Jewish people as powerfully as the Jewish community has spoken in defense of Muslims.

The Arab-Israeli conflict is a tragedy that keeps both sides on “politically correct” guard. But it doesn’t mean that Arabs and Muslims can’t be principled, moral or ethical in defending what is right when it comes to anti-Semitism.

Arabs and Muslims should not allow themselves to be consumed by what we think is wrong. Sometimes we need to step outside of the conflict and remind others and ourselves that we also believe in what is right.

The writer is an award-winning columnist and Chicago radio talk show host. www.YallaPeace.com

Muslim scholar and journalist Anisa Mehdi discuss Ramadan, Islam and Muslims in America

Anisa Mehdi, a journalist and PBS documentarian, talks about her latest production on Islam in the World and the menaing of Ramadan as it comes to a close this week on Radio Chicagoland's "Mornings with Ray Hanania" On WJJG AM 1520 Radio, Tuesday Sept. 15, 2009, www.RadioChicagoland.com with radio host and America's only Arab American morning radio talk show host Ray Hanania. Mehdi has a new 5-part series online (on YouTube) called American Ramadan.

Click to listen to the podcast?

Battle between Bikini and Berqa in Arab World is about absence of freedom

Choice between bikini and berqa is about absence of freedom in Arab World

By Ray Hanania

As I always do around this time of year, I pushed aside the Arab-Israeli conflict for a moment to contemplate the more serious conflict between secular Muslims and Christian Arabs and the growing religious extremism in the Middle East.

There are 22 Arab countries, yet only two had the courage (or pride in their women) to field entrants in this year’s Miss Universe Pageant, which was held in the Bahamas, where string bikinis replace car bombs and women are truly free.The only two Arab countries that entered contestants, again, were Egypt and Lebanon.

Now I know Egypt and its president, Hosni Mubarak, get a lot of flack for the alleged oppression of its citizens: The Coptic Christians are screaming; the Muslim Brotherhood is screaming; the religious fanatics are screaming; and Egyptian ex-patriots are screaming.

I wonder if Egyptians are protesting, or they just like to scream? Anyway, this was the 58th Miss Universe Contest and Miss Venezuela Stefanía Fernández was declared the most beautiful woman in the universe.

I have issues with that. The universe is a big place and who are we to define beauty based on our human criteria? What about creatures from other planets? Well, we can deal with that when they come here, occupy our lands and try to kick us off the planet.

I HAPPEN to think Arab women are the most beautiful in the world. And I think that beauty is something we should brag about, not suppress, hide or run from in fear and shame.

I mean, as an Arab, I have to ask this question: Why is it okay to threaten women who make the choice to showcase their bodies in the Arab world and not okay to challenge the oppressed women who wrap themselves in a burka and niqab like sacks of potatoes while their husbands and male family members run around unshaven in dirty Nikes and other “Western” T-shirts?

Why is it that an Arab woman has the “right” to make the “choice” to wear a burka and face veil and erase her physical identity in public, but that same Arab woman does not have the right to wear a bikini? I think the bikini is the symbol of true freedom and the burka is the sign of modern-day oppression of Arab women.

It’s one of the hypocrisies that plagues the Arab world, brought on by the religious fanatics – the lowest common denominator in the Middle East. And instead of standing up to it, secular Muslims and Christian Arabs – let’s just call them “Arabs” – are doing nothing to stop this growing oppression.

ON APRIL 9, 2006, Tamar Goregian, 23, a Christian woman from Iraq, which remains occupied by American forces, withdrew from the Miss Universe Pageant after Islamic extremists called her “the queen of infidels” and threatened to kill her if she participated. The 2006 pageant was held at the Shrine Temple in Los Angeles.

The two runners-up in the Miss Iraq Beauty Pageant, who were Muslim, declined to take Miss Goregian’s place in light of the death threats. The fourth place runner-up, Silva Shahakian, 23, also a Christian, was left to take the title, but apparently she, too, declined as she was not among the 86 pageant beauties who were introduced during the 2006 show’s broadcast.

The religious thought police in the Arab world argue that a woman showing off her body is disgraceful. Blowing yourself up at a crowded bus stop is not disgraceful, though.

They also assert that the “rights of women” are guaranteed in writing in some Arab countries.

When you have to put something in writing, it usually means it is a problem; otherwise why have it written in a constitution? You have to ask yourself, when a religious fanatic says his wife must wear a burka to protect her “purity,” who is he protecting her from? Strangers? Or his own selfish ego, pride and arrogance.

The truth is that in human beings, the fear that sin will be committed usually comes from the person’s own heart. Humans fear what they know they would do. Are we forcing women to wear the veil to protect them from others? Or are we protecting them from ourselves? That’s why many men in the Arab world would kill their daughters based not on the fact but on the rumor of sexual indiscretion, because the Arab men fear the damage to their own pride, not the “damage” to “their” women. Honor killings remain a serious problem in the Arab world and it’s only getting worse.

THE ISSUE of the Miss Universe Pageant may sound trivial to some, but in truth, it is the cornerstone of the problem that plagues the Arab world and continues to threaten its freedom.

With the exception of violence, a society achieves true freedom when it tolerates the intolerable, mainly in speech.

When you cannot tolerate an individual’s right to live his/her life as s/he wishes, that is called tyranny. Tyranny is the cancer that destroys all societies, and will destroy the Arab world.

(Ray Hanania is an award winning columnist, author and Chicago morning radio talk show host. He can be reached at www.RadioChicagoland.com. This column was originally published in the Jerusalem Post August 26, 2009. Permission granted to republish.)

Noble mission of Bridges Muslim TV collapses in wake of founder's tragic circumstances

When Bridges TV first launched in 2004, there was great hope that it would do two things: First, open the door to Arab and Muslims to portray themselves accurately through engaging and professional journalism. And, more importantly, address the stereotypes that weigh down objective reporting in the mainstream American media which includes not only the news media but the entertainment media of Hollywood and TV and the communications media which includes organizational PR. But over the years, Bridges TV became a kind of challenge to itself.

Instead of promoting a positive image of the Arabs and Muslims, the Cable TV station fell into the community habit of playing to the divisions in the community, siding with those who fit into its religious perspective and pushing out those who did not fit.

In other words, Bridges TV became just like the mainstream media it hoped to change, discriminating against Arabs and Muslims who were too secular, weighing down the issues facing secular Muslims and secular Arabs, pushing out those whose views challenged the rising religious zealotry and political extremism that continues to plague the community.

And audiences started to see this as programming tended toward political spheres and away from the Cable TV's stated mission, which was (with their emphasis):

"Bridges TV aims to foster a greater understanding among many cultures and
diverse populations. Through our high-quality, informative, 24-7 programming in
English; we seek to become a unifying force that can help people understand our
diverse world through education and entertainment."

On Friday Feb. 13, 2009, their web site was brought down. Not by computer Internet hackers, but by the conflict that apparently not only consumed the bTV's mission, but by internal conflicts involving the personal life of the owner and the individual who championed its creation, Muzzammil Hassan.

Muzzammil Hassan, 44, was charged with Second Degree Murder in the grusome the beheading of his wife, Aasiya Hassan, 37, at the Cable TV studios of Bridges TV in a suburb of Buffalo New York on Friday night. (Read story?) Orchard Park is just south of Buffalo New York which also dominated the headlines on Friday when a Continental plane carrying 49 people crashed just outside of the city's airport (Read story?) on its way from Newark Liberty Airport.

Hassan was such a nice person. I spoke with him often about the challenges he faces. He understood that he was fighting two battles. The first against stereotypes in the mainstream American news media and public that oppress Arabs and Muslims. The second in our own community which is divided by an internal war of political extremism versus moderation, rivalries nurtured by years of a community that has been pushed down to the furthest depths of victimization, and rising religious activism which often dictates what is and is not acceptable these days in the Arab and Muslims community.

No one can navigate through those turbulent community waters -- a common denominator across the board in the Arab and Muslim community from New York to Chicago to Los Angeles -- while also having to face up to the persistent challenges of righting the notions of America towards Arabs and Muslims which is drawn with stereotypes of hatred, suspicion, fear, lack of education, ignorance and politics is impossible.

You can't but help to acknowledge the irony that Muzzammil Hassan's tragedy involves one of the most heinous stereotypes that is constantly used to demean Arabs and Muslims. We don't know all the circumstances outside of the charges filed and the victim's remains. We do know that the stereotype runs even deeper, as his wife, who was listed on the now removed Bridges TV web site as "General Manager," was filing for a divorce.

Over the next few days and weeks, we will see the chatter in the mainstream media shift as it always does when it involves Arabs and Muslims from the facts of the issue and crime to the more prevalent stereotypes fueling the racism and ignorance in this country.

Mr. Hassan is innocent until proven guilty. But the circumstance of the events in this tragedy will reach far beyond logic and the damage this will inflict on Arabs and Muslims in America will not yet be fully felt immediately.

Tragically, it will set back and derail the forward movement of Arab American journalism. And it will separate even more the American public from the understanding of the Arab and Muslim community in this country, serving only to reinforce the extremists in the internal battle with the besieged and abandoned moderates that are the majority but who also have come to accept that the challenge of righting the keel is insurmountable and futile.

This is one of the most disturbing setbacks I think I have seen in years in the battle to change the anti-Arab and anti-Muslim stereotypes in this country. Instead of achieving the noble goals stated in the Bridges TV Mission, this event has served to make that road far longer and more difficult.

-- Ray Hanania
http://www.radiochicagoland.com/

The truth about the "Don Imus" Affair: It's not about race but about the unfair of "free speech"

The truth about the "Don Imus Affair"
By Ray Hanania

The Don Imus controversy is not really about the limits of free speech as some are contending, but rather about the discrepancies in how "freedoms" such as free speech are tolerated for some in America but not for others.

These discrepancies are based not on merit but solely on the basis of race, stereotypes and a mainstream society of plagued by the ugliness of America’s unbalanced racial realities.

I enjoyed seeing the Don Imus empire collapse in such utter humiliation. Why? Well, I am Arab American who is most often mistaken for a Muslim.

I disliked Don Imus passionately and am celebrating in his demise. I’d like to see a handful of other American media bigots tumble down along the same ugly path including anti-Arab and anti-Muslim bigots like Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and others like them.

But is the issue curtailing free speech? No. Because free speech is more free for some than it is for others in America.

Those who have enjoyed free speech as unrestrained and as viciously as Imus has, deserve to be judged by a tougher standard of morality.

Those who come from communities who are excluded from the mainstream media, denied equal rights of expression not just in principle but more because of the practice of media exclusion have more flexibility in how they may express themselves.

The freer you have been to disparage people who do not have the same ability to respond to the attacks, the less your right of free speech, in my opinion.

The more you have been a victim of hate speech, the more you have the right of flexibility in what you can say.

Imus and others like him have made sport of Arabs and Muslims, blaming an entire race and religion for the actions of a few fanatics. The horrors of today’s terrorism has been used to rip away the Constitutional protections from a race of people, I believe because they were never popular in this country to begin with.

Most Americans hated Arabs and Muslims long before 19 Saudi Arabian hijackers commandeered four airplanes and crashed them into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania.

Should Imus have been fired for the three words he uttered. As an Arab American who watched and listened helplessly as Imus ranted, slandered, insulted and defamed Arabs and Muslims relentlessly, never giving us the opportunity to respond.

Am I glad he is fired? Absolutely. Was it fair? No.

But fairness has nothing to do with this not because I say so, but because Imus rose to fame on the basis of an unfair system anyway.

In other words Imus rose in popularity to host one of the nation’s premier syndicated radio shows that was also broadcast on an important and high profile Cable Network because 2.5 million people cheered on his rants against Arabs and a select few others in America, mostly Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Arabs, Muslims and even some Jews.

He rose not because of talent, but because his message of hatred, disguised as "satire," defended wrongly as humor, was popular among a growing class of Americans who look down on other ethnic groups. Imus was not popular because minorities loved him. Imus was popular because Whites in mainstream America loved him.

Therefore, his fall from the pinnacle of that mountain of discrimination is justified to be brought down not on the merits of whether what he said was right or wrong, but because just as 2.5 million people can elevate him to popular radio and TV host status, 10 million mostly minorities, Blacks, Asians and Hispanics, and Arabs, have the right to bring him down.

Defenders of Don Imus offer the ridiculous contention that he is the victim of free speech hypocrisy.

Imus merely said in one moment what some African American hip-hop artists, comedians and other entertainers say all the time, endlessly.

But the difference is that Imus directed his comments against individuals of another race. The African American members of a basketball team.

The Black rappers and hip-hop artists are saying things are that considered distasteful to many Americans, but they are almost always speaking about their own experiences of the environments in which they have lived.

There are whores in this world and the fact is they come in all colors and races and religions. If rap artists of one race, African American or even White, want to write lyrics that address that reality of their lives and experience, they have every right to do so even if someone, a majority of Americans, find their comments distasteful.

They can use the term "hos" because it is about what they see around them. Don Imus was not talking about himself, his experience or even trying to make a social statement about the relevance of "whores" in American society when he described 8 African American basketball players as "nappy haired hos."

He made the comments because that is how White Don Imus viewed eight Black women playing basketball who had tattoos and looked "tough."

There is a difference when you laugh at some one, as racist do, or laugh with someone, as true comedians and satirists do all the time. Black comedians joke about their stereotypes and they have every right to do so.

Don Imus, a White man, has no right to lampoon the stereotypes of Black people.

White people are not under the foot of a new more sophisticated form of racism. Blacks and other minorities are.

At the very bottom of the hatred that is the foundation of some in American, sit Arabs and Muslims. As heavy as the burden is upon our heads, we can find the room to celebrate in the demise of Don Imus, and we will do so with gusto!

(Ray Hanania is an award winning Palestinian American columnist, author and standup comedian. He can be reached at www.hanania.com.)