Why Tom Tancredo can stand by bombing Mecca

Last updated on: May 7, 2013 at 6:41 pm by Svend White

Why Tom Tancredo can stand by bombing Mecca 2013-05-07T18:41:00-05:00 Svend White

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Rep. Tom Tancredo has not only refused to retract his "bomb Mecca" comments, but has upped the ante, declaring that his shrill, prejudiced anti-Muslim rhetoric is justified by the supposedly widespread extremism of "moderate Muslims".

While part of his chutzpah can no doubt be ascribed to his own churlishness and to the extreme political climate prevailing within the GOP, to write this off as simply the result of his prejudice is naive. It would be political suicide for any politician to utter such an offensive declaration if it did not appear to be based on "the facts" in most observers’ eyes. He feels able to stick to his guns (unlike Trent Lott did when he, also quite in keeping with the racebaiting ideology of the Far Right, praised Strom Thurmond’s opposition to civil rights; he caved there quickly because popular consensus did not support his reading of American history) because he knows that his assumptions about Muslims as the root of all evil are widely shared.

I understand that many people disagree with my take on Muqtedar Khan’s politics and I respect their views, but I hope those are so outraged by my criticisms of his politics will pause to ponder how his (and some other Muslim pundits–this isn’t unique to him) analysis of the Muslim community might reinforce the underlying attitudes that make Tancredo’s outburst seem "pragmatic" rather than bigoted and paranoid (e.g., the myth that Muslims have been supporting terrorism, that
mainstream Muslim organizations have been havens for political
extremism) . Those assumptions have a far more decisive impact on the Muslim community in the greater scheme of things than upbeat soundbytes, however good they may make us feel. Every time a Muslim commentator validates all this "Green Menace" hysteria, it becomes a little bit easier for bigots to rationalize their hate and political agendas against Muslims.

You don’t fight demonizing rhetoric by taking the path of least resistance and using John Kerry-style "dissent" (e.g., publicly accepting W’s philosophy and then criticizing trivial details of that philsophy). You fight it by challenging all its problematic and incorrect assumptions. For example, you don’t hear responsible African-American leaders accepting claims that all sorts of unqualified minorities are taking away all the jobs from qualified white people, the kind of rhetoric that one hears on the Far Right concerning Affirmative Action (and, in more a subtle form, in mainstream Republican circles).

When Hussein Ibish, whom some Muslims might find an unlikely defender of Islam and Muslims because of his secular leanings, debates a Muslim-bashing pundit, he takes apart all his opponent’s arguments. He doesn’t say, "Well, you’ve got a point about the Muslim community being overflowing with extremists." or "Yeah, Muslims need to stop whining about how Israel treats the Palestinians." Similiarly, when Farid Esack debates with Muslim-bashing hawks, he goes for the jugular and dismantles the underlying justifications for war and empire. The late and great Edward Said, who could’ve been forgiven for sharing some of these stereotypical views of Islam since he was a Christian, wrote Covering Islam, and powerfully challenged *all* the myths, doublestandards, and steotypes about Islam and Muslims, not just the ones that were politically safe to question. He realized that the way Muslims and Islam are subliminally otherized and systematically misrepresented in the mainstream media was at the heart of the political problems of his day. Said challenged the unspoken assumptions of his opponents’ arguments rather than quibbling about secondary issues or limiting himself to the headlines of the day. And similiar things can be said about Noam Chomsky. And the list of (mostly non-Muslim) critics who understand what’s really at stake in these debates goes on. Unfortunately, I don’t think the same can always be said for Khan’s contribution to
the debate, which tends to pass over in silence many of anti-Muslim
assumptions that people like Ibish, Esack, Said and Chomsky would openly refute, and sometimes even reinforces them.

I choose those as examples quite aware of their irony in some respects–especially given all the hoopla about PMU–and because I want to highlight how this isn’t simply a question of whether or not people are "good Muslims", or even Muslims at all. Speaking truth to power is as rare a trait among Muslims as everybody else.

Good luck fighting for Muslim civil rights while we quietly accept Muslim-bashers’ talking points as we "defend" Islam. If that’s going to be our approach, we should get used to this kind of abuse, because it’s only going to become increasingly mainstream as this worldview filters down, unchallenged, to the masses.

Progressive Muslims

Previous Post

July 26, 2005

The backlash continues

Next Post

July 28, 2005 King Abdullah as the Anti-Christ

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category American Politics Animals in Islam Anti-Semitism Christian Jihadism Christianity Culture & the Arts Current Affairs Denmark Dogs in Islam Family life Film Gender Great MP3s Hate in America Imam W.D. Mohammed Interfaith Dialogue International Affairs Islam and the Left Islamic Thought Islamophobia Jihad Judaism Legos Link of the Day Marriage Misc Modernity/Post-Modernity Mormonism Multiculturalism Music Muslims in the Melting Pot Must-Listen Podcasts Non-Muslims and Islam Pakistan Pictures Pigs in Islam Polygamy Pork Progressive Muslims Race Relations Really Important Stuff Religion Required Reading Robert Spencer Scandinavia Science Science Fiction Sex in Islam So-called Globalization South Asia Star Trek Strange but True Studying Arabic Stupid Muslim Tricks Sufism/Tasawwuf Television The "Miami 7" hoopla The Corporate Media The Danish cartoons The GWOT The Jihad against Islam The Middle East Vikings! Wahhabism/Salafism Washington and the Middle East Web/Tech Women in Islam

Select a Month March 2014 February 2014 November 2013 September 2013 July 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 September 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who was made mute and only spoke God's word until Jerusalem fell?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Daniel Jonah Amos Ezekiel