The Dark Side Of America

         Although religious toleration is a cornerstone of American society, intolerance between different religious and racial has also been a part of America’s history. Anti-Semitic and Anti-Catholic movements are examples of religious discrimination against particular communities. Muslims now are being subjected to two different types of discrimination, especially after 9/11: individual discrimination, institutional discrimination, and a combination of the two.         

          Misunderstanding and misinterpretation have led to anger and intolerance which, in turn, have resulted in the creation of an increasingly Islamophobic culture in America. Therefore, many Muslims are victims of discriminative acts. Many of these acts are done on an individual basis. An example of that is Amal Abusumayah, a 28-year-old American mother of four young girls. A middle-aged woman tugged her hijab at a grocery store in Tinley Park Illinois, which was reported by several local news agencies. Other acts are done on an institutional basis. One of these was the controversial proposed community center near Ground Zero which faced a huge wave of opposition by many American and the idea behind the project was misrepresented and misinterpreted by the media. Finally, there are combinations of individual and institutional discriminative acts. An example is the “Quran Burning Day” which was arranged by Pastor Terry Jones, the pastor of the Dove World Outreach Center in Gainesville, FL, as a commemoration of 9/11. Although Jones acted largely as an individual, media coverage of the event and public reaction added institutional dimensions. These examples illustrate the American public’s misunderstanding of Islam and Muslims, which leads many non-Muslim Americans to discriminate against Muslims.                            

            On November 13, 2009, Amal Abusumayah was the victim of a hate crime when Valerie Kenney, a middle aged woman, tugged Amal’s hijab (headscarf) at a grocery store in Tinley Park, a southern suburb of Chicago. This incident is one of several that have made many Muslims in the United States feel unwelcome and unable to exercise their constitutional rights even in a country where people are supposed have the right to practice their religion without fear of persecution. Many sources show that crimes against the Muslim community are growing rapidly. According to Amnesty International, “We are deeply concerned about the growing number of reports of crimes committed against Muslims … in the United States” (Stoddard and Gmerek). The victims are of both genders, mostly adult. Abusumayah was assaulted because she was wearing her hijab, which is considered a religious symbol for Muslim women in general. Moreover, this incident has intimidated many Muslim girls who want to wear a hijab here in America. Many Muslim parents also feel that it is unsafe for their daughters who wear hijab to go out in public alone. Muslim women are an integral part of this society and have the right to express themselves as any other citizen under the umbrella of the law. This is indicates how Muslim women are unable to practice their religion freely in the land of free where the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion. It is clear that freedom of religion should apply to all people regardless of their faith here in the United States. Furthermore, a clear understanding of the religious principles of both Islam and Christianity could prevent acts of individual discrimination here.              

            The hijab incident happened a week after a shooting at Fort Hood Texas, where Nidal Hasan, a Muslim American army psychiatrist, murdered thirteen soldiers. Before Kenney tugged Amal’s hijab, she shouted, “The man that did that shooting in Texas was from the Middle East” (Janssen). Kenney was referring to Hasan’s Muslim background, because he was born to Muslim parents who emigrated from Palestine to the United States in the middle of the nineteenth century. The yanking of the headscarf incident showed that there are some Americans who believe that Muslims are to blame for the Fort Hood shooting. However, those people are too isolated to talk to a Muslim, or too stubborn to educate themselves about Islam which forbids the killing of innocents.                               

            Abusumayah was shocked about what occurred in that grocery store. As she stated, “I was shaken up, this is my dignity and this is my religion” (Schlikerman). This incident was the first experience of prejudice for her. Abusumayah decided to press charges. She said, “If I don't do this, in the future (violence) might escalate” (Schlikerman). Abusumayah reckons that bringing charges would prevent people from doing such acts, or at least improve the chance that people who are willing to assault Muslims will think twice before doing so. Michael J. O'Connell, the police commander in Tinley Park, suggests that people should report any crimes that occur to them. As he said, "If you don't try to stop it, the behavior will continue, they'll get the message they better not do it" (Schlikerman). O'Connell welcomed Abusumayah’s report, indicating that there may be some incidents that have not been reported. O'Connell verifies that police departments will prosecute anyone who is reported as having broken the law by violating the rights of Muslims. O'Connell’s response to the hijab incident shows that the police do cooperate with all people, regardless of their faith or ethnicity, so that people should feel free to report any incident that occurs.                   

            People should also not make broad judgments of whole groups based on the actions of individuals. Individuals like Hasan, or even a group of individuals, never represent a whole community. As Michael Moore writes, “Let’s face it, all religions have their whackos….But we don’t judge whole religions on just the actions of their whackos.” From this we conclude that Muslims should not be judged by the acts of al-Qaeda or any group that does not represent Muslims and do not even follow the principles of Islam. Al-Qaeda attacked the two Trade Center towers in the name of Islam. However, the teachings of Islam contradict what al-Qaeda did. As it says in the Quran, “Come and I will recite to you what your Lord has made forbidden for you[…]that you do not kill any person God has made inviolate - except with the right to do so. That is what He instructs you to do so that hopefully you will use your intellect” (06:151). This verse implies emphatically that Islam forbids the killing of innocent people regardless of their ethnicity or background.

            The headscarf incident has negative effects on the society. As a result of such Islamophobia exhibited in this incident, many Muslim women feel unsafe to practice Islam by wearing the headscarf normally. However, nuns and some Jewish women practice religion by wearing headscarves without having to worry about it. This comparison demonstrates the unfair treatment of Muslims in the United States. As Abdul Malik Mujahid claims, “the ugly tentacles of Islamophobia have penetrated places where Muslims have normally felt safe from it”. One of those places is Tinley Park, where the incident occurred. Arab Muslims have lived comfortably for decades in that suburb. However, after the incident of September 11 and the Fort Hood shooting, hate crimes have escalated. Kawthar Othman, who lives in that community and works as an editor-in-chief at Alhadath Aldawly Newspaper, shared her feelings, “I have not faced any discrimination acts since the Fort Hood shooting, but after 9/11 I faced some of these prejudicial acts”(personal interview). This proves that some people are still generalizing and stereotyping according to a person’s color, race or religion.

            Abusumayah may not have been the intended target of this attack, but she happened to be there at that time. Probably, Kenney would have attacked anyone who looked like a Muslim woman, in reaction of the Fort Hood  shooting that had occurred a week before this incident, because the intended target was the hijab itself. The hijab is considered a symbol of modesty and chastity of Muslim women and by wearing the hijab Muslim women are practicing their religion. Therefore, people must stop generalizing and learn the facts about religions before making any assumptions. Therefore, people should work together and resist all types of bigotry against any religion or group of people to heal the wounds which were created after September 11.   

            In addition to discrimination against individuals, there is a widespread public effort to encourage discrimination against Muslims as a community through the media in the United States. Prejudicial discrimination is seen in the political debate surrounding the plan of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf to build an Islamic community center close to Ground Zero, the site of the former World Trade Center. Many Americans oppose the project because they believe the ground is sacred, and 9/11’s memories remain fresh and bitter. Politicians are divided. Many Republican leaders are against it, while Democrats have different viewpoints on this issue; some support it and others do not. The wave of opposition to Park51 shows the intolerance and discrimination against Muslims in the United States. The pressure to relocate the project is an example of Americans’ antagonism toward Muslims, which many politicians are trying to capitalize on. The First Amendment gives Americans the right to practice their religion without persecution. Therefore, Muslims should be allowed to build Park51 at the proposed site because it is their right under the constitution. They also have the right to stand up and speak freely against an anti-Islamic movement which keeps spreading obvious falsehoods about Muslims and Islam.   

            The intentions behind the Ground Zero “Mosque” were misunderstood by many Americans. First, and most important, the Ground Zero “Mosque” is not really a mosque. It is a community center that has a space for Muslims to pray and worship God. Therefore, it should not be called a mosque because there are huge differences between a mosque and a community center.  Second, according to the managers of the project, the community center will be two blocks away from Ground Zero and the Ground Zero memorial will not be visible from the Park51 building. Although many people assume that the Islamic center is funded by terrorist organizations and countries unfriendly to the United States, the founders of the project state that “We will not accept assistance from any person or institution that is flagged by our security consultants or government agencies” (Park51). This statement clarifies that the fundraising for the Islamic center will have no connection with any terrorist organizations or individuals who might be considered suspect. People should learn the truth rather than making prejudiced assumptions about the project.

            According to the First Amendment, Muslims have the right to build the center. However, bigots disagree. For instance, Marty Peretz, owner of the New Republic, denied Muslims’ First Amendment rights when he said, “frankly, Muslim life is cheap…. I wonder whether I need honor these people and pretend that they are worthy of the privileges of the First Amendment which I have in my gut the sense that they will abuse it” (Linkins). Peretz believes Muslims are unworthy of the rights that protect his own misguided statement. Peretz in his statement showed his ignorance when he failed to distinguish between “right” and “privilege.” The First Amendment guarantees rights, not privileges.

            Top leaders have different opinions regarding the opposed Islamic center close to Ground Zero. President Obama implicitly defended the plan when he said, “As a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practise (sic) their religion as everyone else in this country” (Batty). Obama followed the principles of the First Amendment rights by equating all citizens regardless of race or creed. A most repulsive statement, however, was voiced by Newt Gingrich, the Republican former speaker of the House of Representatives, when he said, “Nazis don’t have the right to put up a sign next to the Holocaust Museum in Washington. We would never accept the Japanese putting up a site next to Pearl Harbor” (Krakauer). Frankly, Gingrich equates the Nazis, who killed 6 million Jews, with Muslims who merely want to build a community center. Gingrich’s second analogy when he implies that building a community center is like involving us in a WWII. Only a minority of Germans wanted the destruction of the Jews, and only a minority of Japanese wanted to rule the world. Even so, only a minority of radical Muslims attacked us on 9/11. Therefore, Gingrich should stop generalizing about Muslims and make a public apology for his statement. The founders of the project should ignore such a blockhead and instead take his statement as a motive to forge ahead. 

            It seems obvious that Muslims should take a step forward and build the community center to protect their rights and send a message that Muslims are an integral part of American society. Additionally, other Americans should also stand and support the Park51 project, regardless of their faith or background because this is a constitutional issue. As George Wright, an Army spokesman at the Pentagon, said, "we are sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution. And freedom of religion is part of that Constitution” (Dvorak). Relocating the project will endanger everyone’s rights. Also, the only people who should be barred from Ground Zero are the people convicted of crimes who lost their freedom through their actions. Therefore, people should back the Park51 project or junk the Constitution.

The discrimination against the controversial plane of Park51 was due in part to misinterpretation by the media, which portrays the project as a mosque not a community center. However, the media used the project to capitalize on other issues like the elections. As Jennifer Veninga, a religious studies professor, said, "This [Park51] story has been misinterpreted by media and used for [other] purposes; it highlights the United States' continued wrestling with [the events of] 9/11 almost 10 years later"(Sanchez). In addition to this misinterpretation of media, the mainstream media dutifully clamored to give Pastor Jones a bigger pulpit than he could have ever imagined, through covering his plan and giving him a tremendous attention.  

            Pastor Jones announced his plan to burn the Quran on the ninth anniversary of 9/11 to commemorate those people who were killed in that attack. Initially, Jones started an electronic campaign using YouTube and social networking Web sites such as Twitter and Facebook in order to gain more supporters for his controversial plan. But, Jones demonstrated his misunderstanding of both Islam and the message of Jesus. His plan to burn the sacred text of Muslims is irreligious and especially unbiblical act. Jones’ scheme angered top US officials and put them in a critical situation regarding the constitutional right of freedom of speech. As a result, they were not able to keep Jones from acting. Jones decided to burn the Quran to get the attention of the mainstream media because he failed in sending his message through his electronic campaign. However, the tremendous attention to Jones’ plan caused it to backfire on him and led him to regret and ultimately abandon his plan.

            Jones began publishing his religious program through the internet. He started by posting YouTube videos to share his ideology on May 1, 2009. However, according to his own channel he has only 247 subscribers and many of his videos have fewer than five hundred views (Braveheart). Jones also became an administer for a Facebook group named “Islam is of the Devil” which was created by Wayne Sapp, a pastor in the Dove World Outreach Center, that has only 483 members, as shown on their group’s Facebook wall (Sapp). As a result of those low numbers, Jones decided to burn the Quran in order some attention to himself. He decided to do this without even reading the Quran, according to his interview on CNN. This act stunned many people and showed his high level of ignorance (Cooper). Jones’ atrocious bigotry and hatred remind Muslims of the vitriol of other Islamophobes like Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer and Fred Phelps, who work day and night to spread faulty information about Islam through their websites and public speeches.

            In contrast to Jones’ ideology, the Quran promotes acceptance and acknowledgment of all other faiths. First, according to the Online Quran Project Jesus Christ is mentioned beautifully about twenty eight times in the Quran. Second, a person cannot be a Muslim if he/she does not believe in the message of Jesus. As it says in the Quran, "We believe in Allah, and the revelation given to us, and to Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and that given to Moses and Jesus, and that given to (all) prophets from their Lord: We make no difference between one and another of them: And we bow to Allah (in Islam)" (2:136). It is explicitly stated that Muslims must believe in Jesus as a messenger of God, and it indicates that Muslims have the respect for other religions. Moreover, Chapter 19 in the Quran, named Miriam (which means Mary in English), tells the story of Jesus’ miraculous birth and the story of the Virgin Mary and other messengers. Muslims have respect for the message of Jesus; therefore, it is insulting for Christians to attack their faith. Also, Muslims were ordered by their God to believe in other messengers who came before Mohamed.  

             To believe in someone’s message means to respect him and to follow his teachings, but Jones’ plan contradicts Jesus’ principles. According to Professor Richard T. Hughes in his article “Jesus and Strangers,” Muslims were mentioned in the Bible in the term of "strangers," and Jesus suggested that those strangers should be respected among the community, regardless of their faith or race. Therefore, Jones should not even have thought about the plan of burning the Quran because it is opposed to what Jesus said in the Bible. For a Pastor this reason should be more than enough to make him regret his attempt to burn the Quran.

            Pastor Jones planned to gain more attention by burning the Quran and indeed he became a ticking time bomb. The plan of this event upset top U.S. officials, who demonstrated their opposition to this incident. As reported by the BBC, President Obama described this event as a recruitment bonanza for Al Qaida and implored Jones to cancel the Quran burning. Also, the Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, made a direct call arguing for him to cease and desist. Moreover, an unusual statement against the burning was made by Gen. David Petraeus, the four-star U.S. general in charge of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. His statement was unexpected because uniformed leaders are not likely to express a public opinion on any political matter.      

            American political leaders faced a difficult constitutional issue regarding the First Amendment right to freedom of speech. They admitted Jones’ right of speech, even though they suggested exercising it was not the right thing to do. Politicians were careful about what they said because the midterm elections were coming up and a mistake might be a gift on a golden platter to the opposite party. As Ed Gurowitz wrote in his article, The First Amendment and Hate Speech, “We can't stop the likes of Jones [...] to do so would be to endanger everyone's First Amendment rights”( Gurowitz). However, there are several ways to silence people like Jones without touching any of their rights. First, ignoring such people is a good method to use; they would be screaming into space. For instance, Bob Old, a Tennessee Pastor, burned the Quran front of a few reporters and only three protesters. This example illustrates that if the mainstream media ignores minor incidents, people like Jones would get no attention. Another way to battle Jones without crossing constitutional boundaries would be to have TV panels with Jones and his supporters, or invite them to interfaith conferences, so that they would get to know more about other religions. Thus, there will be no excuse for them to have any general naïve assumptions. Jones and his companions would be frustrated in their goals and willing to do anything to gain more publicity. As Chris Battle, a former political reporter and editorial writer at daily newspapers, describes Jones in a sarcastic way when he writes, “He would burn his grandmother’s underwear if he thought it would get him some attention” (Battle). So ignoring those people would frustrate their efforts. Perhaps it could be more intelligent people speaking and being listened to: people like Barack Obama and Jon Stewart. For instance, Jon Stewart and other comics made Jones look like an idiot and a bigot, which probably deflated his ability to win people over to his ideology.

            In the end, Pastor Jones canceled his event due to the huge amount of pressure that was put on him. However, he had succeeded in gaining more publicity and attention for his ideology. Misunderstanding leads to anger and intolerance, and misunderstanding is the common factor between Jones and his supporters. As Mohandas Gandhi said, “Anger and intolerance are the enemies of correct understanding” (Gandhi 136). Therefore, if Jones wants sticks to his atrocious ideology, he will never understand the message of Jesus and the message of Islam.    

            Many people in the United States are being betrayed by the mainstream media because it makes it difficult for the public to get the truth. Also, more importantly the media is so severely distorting the picture of reality that it keeps the American people from understanding what Islam is all about. Therefore, Many Americans make their judgments based on unreliable information. These judgments lead many people to take a step forward and commit discriminative acts against Muslims. So people should not rely on the mainstream media and make an effort to educate themselves about Islam. As Benjamin Franklin put it, “Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn” (Franklin 39).

  

 *you may ask for a work cited page