Syed Gilani

Mencius and Mozi on the Government

syedgilani — Sun, 02 Oct 2011 03:29:24 +0000

“Why must the king speak of profit? There are humaneness and rightness, that is all. If the king says, ‘How can I profit my state?’ the officers will say, ‘How can I profit my house?’ and the gentlemen and the common people will say, ‘How can I profit my person?’ Those above and those below will be competing with one another for profit, and the state will be imperiled…the king should speak of humanness and rightness. Why is it necessary to speak of profit?” (Sources of Chinese Traditions (Vol.1): Selections from the Mencius P.116, 1A:1)

“In caring for the people, presiding over the alters of the soil and the grain, and ordering the state, the ruler and high officials these days strive for stability and seek to avoid any error. But do they fail to perceive that honoring the worthy is the foundation of government?” (Sources of Chinese Traditions (Vol.1): Selections from the Mozi P. 66, Section 9)

Both Mencius and Mozi provide a roadmap for an efficient and effective state by putting the ‘worthy’ individuals and decisions as the foundation of a good governance. By honoring the worthy individuals in a close-knit and family oriented Chinese society of that time and encouraging selfless government policies provided effective policy framework to the Kings to manage a vast and diversified Chinese empires. Both Mozi and Mencius seek to establish selfless and worthy governance and seem to compliment each other’s views. Early philosophers of China like Mozi and Mencius played an essential role in forming then Chinese society. Its interesting to realize that their intellectual premises still hold a valid position in establishing a viable and good governance system anywhere in the world; however, the current Chinese governance policies may be far from these teachings.

On behalf of the Grand Lord Secretary …..

syedgilani — Sun, 02 Oct 2011 03:25:42 +0000

The Kingdom faces great security challenges on its borders that cannot be dealt with idealistic strategies as the Literati suggests; therefore, a strong military presence and campaigns are necessary to the Emperor’s rule. To financially support a sound military presence we need the system of equable marketing by keeping the monopolies on salt and iron and excise on liquor. Only through strong government control over the economic and business activities, the Kingdom can provide ample resources to defend its borders against any possible challenge and simple rural economy cannot provide for the resources the Kingdom needs at the moment.

Financial competition through equable marketing shall bring economic prosperity and valuable revenues for the Kingdom that it can use to protect and enhance its borders. The people of the Kingdom may live with Confucius ideologies but the people across our borders may not share our values; therefore, while we adhere to our principles in making the Kingdom attractive to the others, we can never ignore the importance of having a strong military to ensure that our values are secured for the next generations and I cannot support any plan that jeopardizes the resources needed for our Kingdom’s security.

The Literati may propose a highly idealistic view of the world but the Kingdom faces realistic challenges.

Book Review: Good Muslim – Bad Muslim- America, the Cold War, and the Roots of Terror by Mahmood Mamdani

syedgilani — Sun, 02 Oct 2011 00:48:42 +0000

The post 9/11 era has not only brought a new dimension to the world order but has also ignited a robust debate amongst intellectual and political circles about the identity of Muslims by drawing a line of distinction between Good Muslims and Bad Muslims. Good Muslims are normally described as those that have been westernized and are supportive of American policies whereas Bad Muslims are categorized as the fanatical bunch who are opposed to American objectives. This debate is also sketching the fault lines within Muslim communities worldwide as Muslims struggle to seek their identity as players in the modern world. Mahmood Mamdani, in his book Good Muslim-Bad Muslim: America, the Cold War, and the Roots of Terror, explains the roots of terrorism and America’s “War against Terrorism” (Mamdani, Location 2844) from political and religious perspectives by carefully examining through the lens of history. He suggests that embattling modern and premodern cultures and not the religions or democracy that forms the current fault between civilizations which also further divides the Muslims. His book gathers all possible evidence, sometimes not correct, to link the current Islamic terrorist movement with American political objectives.

Mamdani begins by elaborating the history and definition of violence from Western perspective. European political theorists like Max Weber recognized the state monopolized violence as political modernity which in turn was defined in terms of culture and violence. Spanish state-led violence in 1492 first against its Jewish population and then targeted at Muslims was considered important towards establishing a modern Christian Spanish state. Violence later conducted on the wings of racism and imperial objectives led to near decimation of Native Americans, Tasmanian natives, Maoris of New Zealand, Herero of German South West Africa, and later in recent history gassing of Russians and Jews by German Nazis. All violence, he suggests, “is unfortunate response to tragedy” while feeling “self-righteousness” (Mamdani, Location 154). Mamdani bases his book on cultural interpretation of politics, Culture Talk, and suggests a different way of thinking about political Islam. He claims that terrorism, especially Islamic terrorism is rather a recent phenomenon and the tragedy of 9/11 finds its roots into the Cold War.

While questioning the common assumption that every religiously entrenched political movement is potentially a terrorist movement, he makes distinction between ‘fundamentalist’ and ‘political’ Islamic movements. Historically, there has been a clear demarcation between the fundamental and political movements in Islam with later making the call for Muslims’ homeland in South Asia and in other Muslim countries. The foundations of current radical political Islamic movement were laid by political Islamists, Sayyid Qutb in Egypt and Mawdudi in the Sub-continent (Mamdani, Locations 680, 714, 771), who set out to form a ‘truly Islamic’ society by persuasion and coercion. Mamdani makes a clear distinction between cultural and political Islam with former emerging out of the Cold War. He suggests that terrorism is born of a political encounter and especially the current Islamic terrorist movement is born when American political ambitions met political Islam during the Cold War.

At the height of Cold War, America was fighting many proxy wars against Soviet Union around the world. Nixon Doctrine had “Asian boys” fighting “Asian wars” (Mamdani, Location 905, 2512) in Laos and Vietnam with much of the proxy war funded through illicit drugs trade under the umbrella of CIA and USAID. Like Asian wars which led to the CIA led training of thousands of mercenaries, U.S., according to Mamdani, embraced the mercenaries in Congo (1960) and Angola (1975) by providing them both funds and training. Under the umbrella of Safari Club, as U.S. felt on its back foot in Africa (Congo, Egypt, and Somalia) against Soviet Union, then Reagan administration’s CIA chief William J. Casey started seeking the support for “terrorist and proterrorist movements from Renamo in Mozambique to Unita in Angola, and from contras in Nicaragua to the mujahedeen in Afghanistan”(Mamdani, Location 1235). By recognizing the fact that U.S. strategic interests may not be under threat in Europe but in the Third World, through “constructive engagement” (Mamdani, Locations 190, 1232, 1296, 1300) and “Low Intensity Conflicts”(Mamdani, Locations 186, 1246, 1252, 1342) , U.S. tried to turn the tide on the Soviets in Africa and elsewhere.

Reagan’s “rollback” Doctrine (Mamdani, Location 1351) which was aimed at reversing the American defeats in the Third World led U.S. to openly embrace terror in Nicaragua (Central America), invasion of Grenada (1983), and later organizing and conducting a robust guerilla operation in Afghanistan by training and supporting mujahedeen from all over the world. The Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 was a golden opportunity for the U.S. to give Soviets their own Vietnam. During the same year, the Iranian Revolution had given a bitter taste of nationalist Islam. Therefore, to avail the opportunity to defeat the Soviets in Afghanistan, U.S. mustered active support from all over the Muslim world especially in the Middle East and Pakistan. U.S. was ready to defeat Soviets in Afghanistan through armed insurgency for which radical Muslims were gathered from across and world and thousands were radicalized at madrassas in Pakistan. These mujahedeen were given training, weapons, and support at all levels through Pakistani intelligence agency ISI and through other governments. To fund this Low Intensity Conflict, once again U.S. relied on expanding the opium and drug production in the region. In 1985, President Reagan introduced a group of Afghan Mujahedeen leaders as “moral equivalents of American founding fathers” in the White House lawn (Mamdani, Location 1454).

The CIA created Islamic Jihad, according to Mamdani, gave a new life of the teachings of Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Mawdudi in the Sub-Continent. The Afghan war provided the necessary skills, confidence and weapons to a large number of radical Muslims who now had a political agenda i.e. rid Afghanistan of infidels, which after the Afghan war got transformed into the global agenda. Mamdani suggests that privatization of Afghan jihad was probably the vital mistake on U.S. part which led to the development of small fighting contingent without any supervision. Under this privatization, many Pakistani madrassas turned into military training camps and started graduating thousands of right-wing Islamic militants with a political agenda. These right-wing extremists later hijacked the movement at the end of Afghan War and started forming the basis of Al-Qaida, the base, with a goal of global jihad. Once the Afghan War was over, madrassas continued producing mujahedeen now under the new brand of Taliban which later controlled the ravaged and un-organized Afghanistan with brutality and savageness.

At the end of the Afghan War, the Afghan Mujahedeen from other countries later returned to their homelands but this time with terrorist training and ambition to bring down their respective “un-Islamic” governments and establish a truly Islamic state. Mamdani, however, suggests that there is a difference between Islamic terror and radical Islamism with later initiated against the imperial occupations of the 20^th century and to help bring social reforms. Trained right-wing Islamic extremists, forming the ranks of terrorist activities, started organizing terrorist attacks in Islamic as well as western countries as we witness the tragedies in the Middle East and Africa and 9/11 in U.S.

9/11 also changed the rules of American engagement around the world. From low-intensity proxy wars United States quickly moved to high-intensity direct warfare as the world poured its support behind the U.S. “Regime Change”, and that became the new code word for extending American objectives around the world, according to Mamdani, which led to the U.S. invasion of Iraq. The spread of “democracy” through U.S. interventions also resulted in the spread of right-wing movements and terrorism. Mamdani states that, “the debate on terrorism revolves around two poles, the cultural and the political. Culture Talk seeks the explanation for a deed in the culture of the doer. In contrast, Political Talk tends to explain the deed as a response to issues, to a political context of unaddressed grievances”. (Mamdani, Location 3091) Terrorism can’t be dealt as a crime otherwise it won’t be a political problem, the writer states. U.S. policy of reconciliation between the rival groups including mending differences with terrorists changed after 9/11 as zero-tolerance policy against terrorists is installed by the Bush administration. Mamdani, controversially, equates U.S. and Al-Qaida ideologies as the outcome of the Cold War, highly ideological, self-righteous and power centric; where both parties are fighting terror with the means of terror.

Although many claims and suggestions by Mahmood Mamdani are questionable and controversial in his book, he makes a daring effort in explaining the roots of terrorism and the foundations of a Good and a Bad Muslim. Post 9/11 era has forced every Muslim to prove his/her innocence by choosing the pavilion of Good Muslims in comparison with the Muslims who chose the fundamentalist school of thought and were labeled as Bad Muslims. This burden of proof is heavy on the shoulders on all the Muslims especially in the presence of controversial U.S. foreign policies.

Note: All locations are cited from the Amazon’s Kindle version of the book

Right to Creative Education – Conforming our Education to the 21st Century

syedgilani — Sat, 26 Mar 2011 03:10:02 +0000

Our public education system’s concentration on the students’ academic rather than creative ability as a mean to satisfy employment goals has always kept my attention. The right to education which specifically talks about “educational freedom and institutional autonomy” states that “the right to education can only be enjoyed if accompanied by the academic freedom of staff and students” (The Right to Education, Article 13, 12/08/1999)seems hard to achieve in the presence of our current creativity lacking educational system. With no attention to offering creative education in the public schools, in my view, we continue to concentrate on ‘job’ based academic achievements designed after the 19th century industrial model. This in turn is producing an army of so called trained individuals in the professions that may no longer be there in the next five years resulting in economic stress on a limited business sectors. Special Rapporteur on the right to education states that’s “The origins of public schooling lie in the common school model of the nineteenth century, a concept initiated as a practical exercise in all-inclusive schooling and a promising means of promoting economic self-sufficiency” (Report submitted by Katarina Tomaševski, Special Rapporteur on the right to education -24 September-10 October 2001). The ‘promised mean to economic self-sufficiency’ is now severely challenged in the 21^st century when occupational pathways are rapidly changing with the emergence of new and creative careers and businesses. Our focus on academic vs. creative ability of children and using academic achievement as a yardstick to one’s success in the job market has now proven wrong by the some of the great inventors and achievers like Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, and recently by Mark Zuckerberg. Earlier, having degrees were the guarantee for a job but now we see highly educated individuals with many degrees being unemployed. I think it is very important that we switch our focus toward promoting the right to creative education not only in the developed countries but also in the developing nations, as an answer to the rapid innovation and expansion of career pathways around the world. Otherwise, we may end up losing a great pool of very talented and creative children, to violence, because the current ‘academic achievement oriented’ education system does not find them smart enough to meet its standards.

Right to Food – Flood Victims under Famine Threat in Pakistan

syedgilani — Sat, 26 Mar 2011 03:09:11 +0000

The 2010 monsoon in Pakistan caused one-fifth (307,374 sq mi) of the country to be submerged under flood water, destroying a great portion of the country’s major crop growing land. The flood caused massive food shortage in the country, causing the prices of staple food to skyrocket and out of the reach of the average person, particularly the flood victims. The already burdened economy of the country took a hit of another $43 billion approximately, sending the aftershocks of the devastation into the year 2012. The rising inflation and declining value of the Pakistani currency has added to the miseries of the flood victims as they are unable to afford basic food items. Sen says that in the face of crises like famine, “the focus should be on the economic power and substantive freedom of individuals and families to buy enough food¹”; The government of Pakistan, however, lacks any solid relief plan to help the flood victims in these crises and the so called ‘Benazir Income Support Program²’ is only supporting the people along the political party lines. On top of that, the feudal societal structure of the country discourages the ‘endowment’ of the resources by the poor. Although Universal Declaration on the Eradication of Hunger and Malnutrition recognizes that “Every man, woman and child has the inalienable right to be free from hunger and malnutrition in order to develop fully and maintain their physical and mental faculties ………..and it is a fundamental responsibility of Governments to work together for higher food production and a more equitable and efficient distribution of food between countries and within countries³”, we see no short or long-term national or international aid program to ensure this basic human right. Economic and physical “accessibility⁴” as required by the article 11 of The Right to Adequate Food is not ensured and according to Wolfgang Herbinger, director of the World Food Program (WFP) in Pakistan, due to excessive wheat buying by the Government of Pakistan, now ordinary consumers pay double the price for wheat compared to three years ago and the food security situation has “changed dramatically”, forcing people to take out loans to pay for their food⁵. To prevent famine and food shortages, Sen says that “attention has to be paid to the need for incentives to generate the growth of outputs and income.⁶” It is, therefore, important that national and international bodies work in coherence to offer long term output and income growth initiatives before a frontline nation in the war of terror slips into even major economic problems.

Amartya Sen “Development as Freedom”. Chapter 7 “Famines and the Other Crises”. P. 161
Benazir Income Support Program – Government of Pakistan. http://www.bisp.gov.pk/
Universal Declaration on the Eradication of Hunger and Malnutrition. Adopted on 16 November 1974 by the World Food Conference convened under General Assembly resolution 3180 (XXVIII) of 17 December 1973; and endorsed by General Assembly resolution 3348 (XXIX) of 17 December 1974
United Nations Economic and Social Council, The right to adequate food (Art.11) : . 05/12/1999
Pakistan food prices too high: UN food relief agency. http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110323/wl_sthasia_afp/pakistanunfloodsfoodfarmrelief
Amartya Sen “Development as Freedom”. Chapter 7 “Famines and the Other Crises”. P. 177

Globalization’s Impact on the Right to Development

syedgilani — Sat, 26 Mar 2011 03:07:15 +0000

If according to the article 2 of Declaration on the Right to Development, human person is the central subject of development and should be the active participant and beneficiary of the right to development; all human beings have a responsibility for development…..and they should therefore promote and protect an appropriate political, social and economic order for development; and states have the right and the duty to formulate appropriate national development policies that aim at the constant improvement of the well-being of the entire population and of all individuals (Declaration on the Right to Development, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly resolution 41/128 of 4 December 1986), then is globalization a helpful or harmful force for the achieving RTD for individuals and nations?

I think that the concept of Right to Development, which requires origination and active participation by the people, societies and countries, somewhat collides with the concept of globalization which requires integration of economies, societies and their cultures that may not be indigenous to the people and may even directly conflict with their development goals. Margot E. Salomon states, “In this era of globalization that seeks to provide for an international environment conducive to the further accumulation of wealth by the wealthy through the expansive tendencies of global capital, the right to development demands international cooperation under law for the creation of a structural environment favorable to the realization of basic human rights, for everyone.” (Implementing the Right to Development – The Role of International Law, Stephen P. Marks, Harvard School of Public Health, Chapter 1, P. 17) To formulate national development policies with active people participation requires nation and people centric agenda which discourages accumulation of wealth by few in a globalized environment. Amy Chua states that the prevailing view among globalization’s supporters is that markets and democracy are a kind of universal prescription for the multiple ills of underdevelopment (World on Fire, P. 8). I would, however, think that such globalization agenda needs to integrate the aspirations and objectives of the people and countries of the developing world as well, without which we may experience dominant minority’s economic and social rule which may lead to majority’s disliking towards globalization. The concept and process of RTD seeks equal ground for developing nations at international stage and for globalization to become conducive to RTD, it must resonate the view of the developing world. I would agree with Uvin that the concept of RTD is politically weak and sometimes contradictory to the principles of globalization. Classic example can be Endorois Welfare Council vs. Kenya case where Endorois people’s RTD collided against the game reserve.

Corruption-A Major Obstacle in Reducing Poverty

syedgilani — Sat, 26 Mar 2011 03:05:47 +0000

When Sen talks about poverty in terms of “capability deprivation” (Development as Freedom, P. 87) or Jeffery Sachs associates it with “deprivation in well-being” (The End of Poverty) or Economists view it in strictly Gross Domestic Product of a country or from the microscope of Gross Happiness Index; I wonder what if there is one major obstacle in the way of increasing the human capability or well-being in a society/country. An obstacle that does not allow countries to take full benefit from its poverty alleviation policies and seek progress as planned. I think there may be many factors that may reduce the impact of global and domestic efforts towards reducing poverty but widespread corruption in poverty ridden countries/societies may be one of the prominent reasons behind “capability deprivation” and “deprivation in well-being”. According to Amitai Etzioni (Professor of International Relations at George Washington University) in his article Corruption Reduction (Harvard International Review, winter 2011 Volume 32, No.4) World Bank had invested scores of billions of dollars since mid 1990s for economic development in 25 developing countries, and due to widespread corruption in these countries more than half had the same or worsening rates of per capita income from the mid 1990s to the early 2000s. Transparency International Report 2010, Sub-Saharan Africa has seen 62% increase in the corruption levels from 2007-2010 whereas Asia Pacific has seen 47% and Latin America has seen 51% increase in their corruption levels during the same period. A US State Department report found Iraqi government to be rife with corruption at all levels and according to Iraq’s top anti-corruption investigator, around US$11billion dollars are lost to misconduct/corruption in Iraq. Transparency International ranks Afghanistan as the second most corrupt nation among 180 countries with about 23 percent of its GDP is paid in bribes (Etizioni).

I think it should be of no surprise that poverty ridden countries happen to be the most corrupt ones as well and vice-a-versa. When global efforts to alleviate the poverty hit corrupt practices we can see not only loss of aid money but also loss of hope for many living in dire situation which in turn makes human rights organizations’ job much more daunting.

Right to Development and Economic Framework

syedgilani — Sat, 26 Mar 2011 03:04:15 +0000

Its interesting to find out that although “Right to Development”, a recognized human right adopted first by the United Nations in 1986 (Declaration on the Right to Development), and later at 1993 Vienna World Conference on Human Rights (Uvin 41, 42), is now a broadly acclaimed notion in both the human rights and development economics arena; widespread disagreements still lurks its horizon as to how to achieve this right in a highly political world. Earlier marred by politics of the Cold War, CP rights remained more important than ESC rights, especially in the rich countries which dominate the global human rights movements (Uvin, 47), and later engulfed with the politics of theoretical and practical approach of best achieving these human rights objectives; we yet have to see a solid economic development framework that is acceptable to everyone. If the right to development is so close to human rights and human rights are universal (equal for all humans) then should everyone follow any particular approach to economic development or can we achieve the optimum results by following diverse development approaches? And which approach can provide us better results in achieving both ESC and CP human rights? I think, neither the thesis, antithesis nor the synthesis models (Professor Marks’s Lecture) of economic development alone can provide a comprehensive approach to development that also guarantees all human rights. Mere concentration on economic growth to achieve human rights for all is not the best strategy as noted by UNDP 2001 report, “Human development is about much more than the rise or fall of national incomes. It is about creating an environment in which people can develop their full potential and lead productive, creative lives in accord with their needs and interests” (Professor Marks’s Lecture). China and India, with different political and economic models are able to address different human rights issues through their development models and neither of them have been successful in achieving both ESC and CP human rights (Sen, 41- 43). I think a combination of ‘growth- mediated’ and ‘support-led’ (Sen, 46) policies can provide the answer to development experts in promoting human rights in any society, as experimented by social democracies.

Importance of Accountability in the Right Based Approach to Human Rights

syedgilani — Sat, 26 Mar 2011 03:02:50 +0000

Human rights, originating from moral reasoning and social advocacy (A. Sen) of a society, build the framework of socially sanctioned norms and eventual legal structure to protect individual rights. In the backdrops of various cultures, I find the evolution of global consensus on human rights a long, flexible, and politically powered process. The lack of common willingness to effectively implement human rights makes the concept of “accountability” of states, public and private institutions, and even of human rights and development NGOs in actively pursuing right based approach (RBA) of human rights, very fluid. The Human Rights Council of Australia considers accountability as a key to the protection and promotion of human rights (Uvin, 131); however, one of the prominent criticisms on human rights comes on its ‘political’ nature (Mary Robinson, 32) and politically geared objectives I think, contradicts transparent accountability and can only be improved but is difficult to perfect. Good education and healthcare can be considered as basic rights in any society, but it is difficult and to a certain extent, makes it politically undesirable to hold governments of developing and under-developed countries accountable for their lack of provision of these basic human rights. Sometimes the lack of legal infrastructure hinders accountability. Peter Uvin (Human Rights and Development, 132) talks about the notion of justiciability, the capacity to adjudicate a claim before a court of law, and goes on to explain that economic, political, and cultural (ESC) rights are justiciable but may not happen in practice because in weak systems parties affected are too poor or powerless. The effective way of promoting accountability lies within the framework of the morals of a society i.e. by promoting shared expectations and socially acceptable discourse (Uvin, 134) and to weave a common moral structure across the globe may not be that easy. Thomas Pogge (World Poverty and Human Rights, 65) extends the notion of the government to anyone with authority including the lowest and smallest agencies and officials, in promoting accountability against human rights violations at every level, but in reality, these actors are hardly held accountable in human rights violations. For example, the constitution of Pakistan provides protection to minority rights at both governmental and private levels; however, constant violations of such human rights, for instance, the right to worship etc., can be seen in that country and hardly ever has the state been held accountable for its violation of human rights.

Islamophobia

syedgilani — Mon, 27 Sep 2010 17:53:25 +0000

Islamophobia is currently at the center of heated interracial and inter-faith discourse in Europe and America. However, before we discuss the state of Islamophobia in US and Europe, we must first understand the origins and nature of such mind set in any society.

Peter Gottschalk and Gabriel Greenberg, in their book Islamophobia, describe the process of stereotyping a certain society or culture while referring to the movie “Siege” and later with the help of cartoon caricatures. If we consider Islamophobia on one end of the scale, we may find the caricatures on the on the opposite side helping to form the mindset of any society or culture against the other. When I refer to caricatured representation of any society, culture or religion, I am referring to all forms of portrayal including film, drama, print media, cartoons etc. which helps to build the perception of people about the ‘other’ by “focusing on one or more unusual physical or behavioral characteristics” (Peter Gottschalk and Gabriel Greenberg, Islamophobia: p.65). The movement on the scale from caricatured presentation towards stereotyping a group, culture or a religion happens quite smoothly and from “people’s association –positively or negatively-with the stereotyped group from their own society rather than from their experience with that group” (Peter Gottschalk and Gabriel Greenberg, Islamophobia: p.67).

According to Peter and Gabriel, caricaturing of Muslims and eventual stereotyping the whole Muslim society have led the West (specially Americans) to believe that Muslims are synonymous to the Middle East and that all Middle Easterners show specific cultural behavior and share identical ideology. “A common symbol used to depict all Arabs is that of an Arab man who looks unkempt or disheveled. This hints at the “dirty Arab” stereotype not uncommon in both the United States and Europe.” (Peter Gottschalk and Gabriel Greenberg, Islamophobia: p.71). Peter and Gabriel further claim that through such negative depiction of “them,” stereotypes positive define “us” as not like that. This is a very important aspect of societal understanding of itself against the other that further leads to its xenophobic behavior, since ‘they’ are portrayed as opposite to ‘our’ lifestyle and values, ‘their’ acceptance and then integration into ‘our’ society and neighborhoods cannot be acceptable. Negative caricature of a group leading to the respective stereotyping of the culture, religion or region, later leads one group of people to develop xenophobic behavior against the other.

Now the jump from this xenophobia into the Islamophobia is a matter of one small step to reach the other side of the scale. Having understood the journey of a society from being briefed by media, educational and societal caricature of a group to xenophobia and eventually Islamophobia, we can now discuss the state of Islamophobia in US and Europe.

In Europe, the difference between the xenophobia and Islamophobia is negligible. Europe’s association and promise towards the formation of a secular or ‘Laicite’ society that adheres to a distinct separation of the state and religion and of course their perception of European Muslims as ‘foreigners’ has led them to a greater debate on Islamophobia. This current debate on Islam started as xenophobia amongst the Europeans for their respective Muslim communities. Since Muslims form the largest minority in Europe, the debate of preserving the integrity of their societies quickly shifted towards Muslims, hence giving birth to a wide spread Islamophobia. John R. Bowen in his book Why The French Don’t Like Headscarves, explains in great detail the French discontent of public depiction of religious especially Islamic religious symbol i.e. Headscarves. Dominic McGoldrick explains Islamophobia as part of today’s European political discourse, especially in France, in his book Human Rights and Religion: The Islamic Headscarf Debate in Europe. In one of our other readings, Comparative State Practice, we can have a comparative analysis of Islamophobia in retrospect to France, Germany, and Switzerland and of the predominantly Muslim country, Turkey. The larger debate in Europe revolves around laicite or in general about preserving secular values. Consideration of Muslims or Islam as foreign and in contradiction to the European values and norms, along with the perception of Islam and Muslims as incapable of integration has led a widespread panic of Islamophobia.

The current Islamophobic campaign has put European countries, specially France, Germany, Denmark, and Switzerland on their cautious foot with the majority public against the public depiction of all sorts of Islamic symbols like scarves, mosques and minarets. As the professor Cesari mentioned in the class, Islamophobic sentiments in the US are getting closer to the European discourse and it seems as if it’s a spillover of the European discourse into the US society. According to Louise Cainkar, Homeland Insecurity, discrimination against Muslim or Arab Americans is not a pre-9/11 phenomenon. His reference to the Southwest of Chicago and Southwest suburbs and explanation of various cases in pre and post 9/11 era clearly shows that discrimination against the Arab Americans were present and hatred against the group was developing long before the terrorists’ attacks.

Cainkar mentions the comments of a 19-year-old Colin Zaremba who marched with a group from Oak Lawn towards Bridgeview Mosque expressed his hatred towards Arabs saying “I am proud to be American and I hate Arabs and I always have.” This clearly shows that in the Southwest suburbs of Chicago, hatred against the Arab was developing long before the 9/11. The terrorists’ attacks were, however, important in pushing the envelope and giving the prelude to express such hatred in public. Cainkar explains the reason for low rate of hate crimes and discrimination in the southwest side of the city of Chicago due to mixed multiethnic (Latino, African American, and White) population.

Whereas the hate crimes on the southwest suburbs were higher due to predominantly white American population who were not happy of Arab population growth in their neighborhood and found it a threat to their homogenously white suburban areas. “This pattern was evident across the United States as hateful actions continued to occur for years after 9/11 attacks because these actions were about matters much larger than post-9/11 backlash- they were about cultural hegemony and the ‘moral order’ of the neighborhood.” (Cankar: Homeland Insecurity). In the neighborhoods where community integration process was already in place before 9/11, the backlash was minimal. Organizations like Southwest Organizing Project (SWOP) and others mobilized to further integrate and help the Arab Americans around the suburban areas. Current debate on the Ground Zero mosque project has given a whole new dimension to the Islamophobia in the US leading to the extreme outpour of emotions in the form of the Quran burning effort led by the Florida pastor. We must also understand that such anti-Arab, Anti- Islam sentiments were already there but were mainly unorganized across the United States. These two recent incidents have taken the US discourse on Islamophobia a whole new meaning and a new level.

The current debate in US is no longer a xenophobia but has transformed itself into a a complete Islamophobic debate. Islamophobia in US was propelled by the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The country of immigrants has always welcomed Muslims from all over the world and has successfully integrated millions of Muslims as part of the American Society. Sporadic and unorganized incidents of hatred and discrimination of Muslim and Arab Americans but mainly it was 9/11 attacks that brought US closer to the European stance that Muslims or Islam cannot be integrated into the main fiber of the Western Societies.