On December 4, 2006, the national leadership of American Muslims met with key senior US government officials to discuss the state of Islamophobia in America and US Muslim relations. The conference was organized by the Bridging the Divide Initiative of Saban Center at the Brookings Institution. It was co-sponsored by the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding and the Association of Muslim Social Scientists.

As the conference chair of the program, the most extraordinary challenge that I faced was to bring together two parties that did not see eye to eye on this issue. While American Muslim leaders and participants were arguing that Islamophobia was not only a reality but rapidly increasing phenomenon in America, the government's position was that while there have been increased incidences of anti-Muslim episodes in the US, the word Islamophobia deepens the divide between the US and the Muslim world. Other representatives of the government also suggested that the fear that Muslims were referring to was not the fear of Islam but the fear of Muslim terrorism as manifest on September 11, 2001.

Stephen Grand, the Director of the US-Islamic World program welcomed the forty plus participants from US government and the Muslim community and launched the conference. The government was represented by several participants from the Department of State, the Department of Homeland Security and associated agencies. The morning keynote address was delivered by Alina Romanowski, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Professional and Cultural Affairs. She was introduced by Ambassador Martin Indyk the Director of the Saban Center. He argued the importance of such dialogues at a time when the gap between America and the Muslim World appeared to be widening.

Alina Romanowski reiterated the vision and objectives that Ambassador Karen Hughes seeks to advance at the State Department on public diplomacy. She talked about the three key public diplomacy objectives - offering a positive vision of hope and opportunity around the world that is rooted in America's belief in freedom, justice, opportunity and respect for all; isolating and marginalizing the violent extremists and confronting their ideology of hate and tyranny; and fostering a sense of the common values and common interests between Americans and peoples of different countries, cultures and faiths around the world. The question and answer session was remarkably open and candid. Ms Romanowski agreed to relay the issues raised by the group during her session to others in the Department. Listening and creating opportunities for people-to-people exchanges and dialogue, she said, was a key component of the work of the Education and Cultural Affairs Bureau at the Department of State.

Nihad Awad, the Executive Director of the Council on American Islamic Relations, argued that Islamophobia was a new word but not a new phenomenon. He presented data to indicate that hate crimes against Muslims had risen by 29% in the last one year and in the ten years since 1995 that his organization [CAIR] had collected data on Islamophobic episodes, it has shown nothing but steady increase. He concluded that being critical of Islam and Muslims is not Islamophobia, but to ridicule the faith and the faithful, certainly is.

Louay Safi, the Executive Director of the ISNA Leadership Development Center, insisted that Islamophobia deepens the divide between the US and the Islamic World. He argued that increasingly Islam is being presented as a violent and intolerant religion and this message is spreading from the margins to the mainstream. A report entitled "Blaming Islam" authored by Dr. Safi and published by the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding was released at the event.

Imam Mahdi Bray, the Executive Director of the MAS Freedom Foundation expressed concern that in spite of the fact that most Muslims cherish American values, they are portrayed as seditious. He lamented the ignorance of Islam that underpins Islamophobia and suggested that occasionally some measures of the government, when in its overzealous endeavor to prosecute the war on terror it overplays its hand and undercuts Muslim civil rights, may also be contributing to the growing instances of Islamophobia.

The afternoon Keynote address was delivered by Dan Sutherland, the Officer for Civil Rights at the Department of Homeland Security. Mr. Sutherland started by observing that there is "a lot of heat but very little light" on the subject of Islamophobia. He addressed the issue of Islamophobia and the rising hate crimes and anti-Muslim discourse in America head-on. He argued, based on fifty years of statistical data, that America has progressively become less and less racist.

Sutherland then spoke at length about the stunning achievements of American Muslims in every sphere of American life asserting that the degree to which American Muslims are integrated and successful belies any claims of systematic Islamophobia in America. He did however concede that there have been several incidences of Islamophobic episodes, but he also claimed that there were many which were resolved in the favor of Muslims and discussed a few cases where the government has interfered effectively on the behalf of Muslims.

The government's case was very clear; yes there are disturbingly large numbers of incidences that suggest that prejudice is at work, however the overall picture indicates that things are not as bad as some Muslim leaders were claiming them to be.

The final panel of the day included, Ahmed Younis, the National Director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, Imad-ad-Dean Ahmad of the Association of Muslim Social Scientists and myself from the Brookings Institution. This panel sought to balance the debate by arguing that while there are disturbing indications of the growth of anti-Muslim prejudice in America, there are several surveys which speak to this reality, American Muslims must be careful how they talk about Islamophobia.

The panelists also argued that American Muslims must work with our government to not only challenge the anti-Islamic discourse that is spreading in the US but also work to correct some of the misunderstandings that the government itself may be harboring about Islam and American Muslims. An additional theme that was explored was the need to challenge anti-Americanism that was spreading within the Muslim community. Recognizing that anti-Americanism and Islamophobia feed each other, the panelists called for simultaneously addressing both prejudices.

While this was the first US Government and American Muslim conference on Islamophobia, there is need for several more such interactions in order to help define the term and come to a common understanding about the extent of anti-Muslim prejudice in America and how the government and the community can jointly address it.

I would like to first commend the article that Mr. Khan had written. It was insightful and interesting.

While I agree to the fact that Islamaphobia is at best in the intermediate stages of being a phenomenon with hazardous potential, I contest that Islamaphobia is a serious issue in the United States. I agree there is a caricature of Muslims in the States and do not deny any incident which has happened to Muslims, especially after 9/11. Yet, those same problems resonate in just about any ethnic/religious subgroup. African-American, Jews, Asians to name a handful are often subjugated to various hate crimes. But if you analyze the overall situation of Muslim animosity, itís far less than what you see in other countries. The reason-- the United States is not a devout and religious country which holds any specific faith and/or denomination in high esteem. In fact, it requires itself to take a more secular approach with Church and State in order to diffuse resentment from religious denominations.

Statistically, and thanks to the blessings of God (swt), American Muslims have been very successful for the past 30 years. They have established themselves as perhaps the highest educated and most economically prosperous people of any one faith. Granted, the Muslim population in America hovers only a tad over perhaps 7 million, itís still a very high achievement. One would assume that Muslims have been able to work well and have been accepted in Corporate America as well as their own businesses, to which many cater to non-Muslims. So where does the feeling of paranoia or this alleged resentment towards Muslims surface from Islamic organizations?

The fact is that religion is not an essential fabric in American society should be stated. It is often frowned upon and has been demonstrated against on even simple actions and traditions, i.e. the Pledge of Allegiance in school classrooms.

If there is anything Muslim organizations need to work towards, it's to curb the amount of negative media coverage which comes into our living rooms every night vividly showing Muslims in the Middle East, Pakistan, Indonesia, etc. waving guns in their hands, chanting ìdeath to the Westî and disguised in camouflage. And that is what Americans resent more than anything- an alleged religious fundamentalist claiming their religion is better than the rest, which this country doesn't care about, nor has remorse or appeal.

Simple: Islamophobia is when, for example, someone says "push all Muslims out"; civil rights violations are when, for example, someone says, "you can't work here because you are Muslims" or, "You can't buy a house here because of that thing on your head." Islamophobia is *not* saying, "We don't want shariah law in Canada", for example or even opposing Islamist political campaigns or communal agendas of overseas Muslim groups. CAIR's newsletter carried a story yesterday of a man named Bash Pharoan of an Arab-American anti-discrimination committee who said he was offensive that a local school did not call Muhammad "the *Prophet* Muhammad". It is not Islamophobia that non-Muslims do not believe what we believe! He was also upset that the school reprinted things from the hadith ("sahih", by the way) that weaken the discourse that Islam(ism) conforms with Western sensibilities and therefore Americans should not fear it. I say, either reinterpret it or leave Islam, because using PR spin simply is being seen through by most Americans.

Islamophopia is prejudice against Muslims because of their faith. I don't understand why there has to be much debate about how to define it. Anti-semitism (misnomer though it is) is generally defined as prejutice against Jews. Clearly criticism of Israel's actions should not fall in those categories. People will often call things racism when they are not; this will always happen.

you guys all raise some interesting and plausible points.for eg, i agree that Amer Mus have been much better off economically and in terms of rights in the US than in other countries.but here we need to make a distinction: economic integration--things measured in no of Mus businesses,etc are (1) used in a generalized context (2) not necessrly descriptive of social/political integration. This second point is perhaps more measurable in terms of +vity/-vity of "responses" to Muslim presence (ie receptiveness) and in terms of degree of "acceptance/acceptibility" and "relevance [to the broader society]". It is this second category of interactions that is not only a sensitive topic (b/c it involves "assimilation," etc) but also have sticky points that can influence "Islamophobia," whichever way it is defined.in turn,feelgs of being rejected can reinforce "paranoia" or "marginalization," especially when the levelsof "acceptance /acceptiblity/relevance" for Mus are less compared to those of other backgrounds.Mus may be ecomiclly well integrated, but compared to other groups,do Mus get a fair chance of recogntion of their +ve achievements?Or is this recogntion only one of recycled images?Yes, Mus contribute a share to these images..and that needs to be resolved.but i raising the point from comparative perspective, but members of other groups also have "skeletons to hide in their closets," yet appear to be treatd diffrlty overall.

certly,. there r terrible stereotypes affectg other groups, like for eg those of associating crime/street violence with Afro-Amer. I do not belittle these stereotypes, b/c they r still prevalent and horrible in their own right. my broader concern is with performing a complicated set of multiple comparisons.for eg, i see a rising number of afro-amer shows emerging to battle simplistic stereotypes on Afro-Amer and present them as caring/loving as any other American--ie something American public can RELATE to (only emphasis intended)--egs:My Wife&Kids;,All of US,The Hughleys,The Cosby Show,Hangingw/Mr Cooper.Similarly, this phenomenon is emerging for Latinos--eg George Lopez Show, American family. The point I making is the existnce of mainstream institutions' demonstration of regularly, daily "pitching in" to help defeat stereotypes in ways that can help the avg amer see lovable commonalities.To present, I have seen no counterparts, or very few significant counterparts, to help Muslims/Arabs/S Asians, etc.

I would have to agree to the comments you made especially concerning Latinos and African-Americans. However, if you look at African-American entertainment that is assimilated within the mainstream, how many religious themes were there to t.v. shows and film? By my fond memory as a child growing up watching the Cosby show, Martin, Good Times, the Jeffersons, or black movies such as Shaft, Boyz N' Da Hood, the Color Purple, Lean on Me, etc. I think the answer would be 1. Ironically, the movie had Islam as one of its pillars--Malcom X.

For a muslim variety or entertainment show to be institutitonalized in American society, it would have to carefully balance the religious theme with everyday life. As Muslims, we know how much our religion encompasses our lives on a daily basis, hence the beauty behind Islam. But, most Americans are dissauded by such spirituality. Even Christmas is completely commercialized which holds little merit except to those that are devout Christians, and they're a small demographic. Likewise, Hannukah could be mentioned in the same breath (though not as much) as it has slowly melted into the same corporate game that attracts Jews to shop and buy a myriad of presents for their 8 days or Festival of Lights.

I think I would emphasize that the economic stability of many Muslims has provided a safety net when it comes to discrimination compared to say perhaps that of African-Americans whom by far have been affected as a group like no other in this country. As I had mentioned in my earlier comments, I would agree that most Muslims are not looked upon with compassionate eyes. Put the blame on media and entertainment. But they are tolerated and overall the discrimination towards Muslims in the United States is greatly exagerrated.

Aabu Nurah says that Islamophobia is prejudice against Muslims because of their faith. No, this is not prejudice. This is a result of studying that belief system and finding that it contradicts Western values. Muslim values are different from Western values, and just as pious Muslims are right, from their point of view, to criticize Western values, so non-Muslims are right to criticize Islamic values. That is not prejudice. For example, here are just a couple of Islamic values which non-Muslims rightly find highly objectionable:

Surely the vilest of animals in Allahís sight are those who disbelieve. (8.55)

The unbelievers are your inveterate enemy. (4:101)

Mohammed is God's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another. (48:29).

Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. (9:73 and 66:9)

It is not "Islamophobia" to criticize a belief system which holds such values to be the literal word of God, perfect and eternal.

As for the term "Islamophobia", it is an intellectually reprehensible propaganda term designed and used by Islamic apologists for the purpose of preventing all discussion of Islam as a belief system. The term should not be used by any openminded person. All belief systems, including Islam, should be open to discussion and criticism.

CG

To suggest that Muslim values are different from Western values is sheer and utter nonsense.

People have every right to criticise a belief system. But to suggest that an Abrahamic belief system goes against Western values is .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

Let's look at some allegedly Jewish and Christian beliefs that I personally find reprehensible and that contradict Western values:

a. The whole idea of 'gentile' or 'goyim' goes against decades of anti-discrimination legislative consensus across the Western world.

b. The belief that we inheret evil and sin, and should be held accountable for the sins of our ancestors. This clearly contradicts the Rule of Law.

c. The idea that an innocent man be put to death for the sake of the sins of others. Imagine a civilised criminal justice system being based on this.

Monte, I want you to prove to me that Judaism and Christianity do not have any teachings that contradict Western values. I expect you will rise to the challenge.

Irfy,
Western values are Judeo-Christian values. Where do you think Western values came from? As for Islam contradicting western values, the best proof is that all of the Moslem countries refused to accept the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and, instead, created their own Declaration of Human Rights in Islam which is very different. When Islam signs on to the Universal Declaration of Human rights, then you can talk about Islam sharing Wesern values, and not until then.

Monte, would you offer your son to be crucified if I go and murder someone? Show me how Christian vicarious sacrifice forms part of the criminal justice system of any Western country.

Irfy, are you out of your bloody mind? Vicarious sacrifice is not a part of Christianity except for Jesus. That's it. A one-time, unique affair. I personally do not agree with its basic concept because I believe that each person bears responsibility for his own actions and no other person can relieve me of my sins. As you can guess, I am not a Christian. In any case, each Christian is responsible for his own acts, and each one must choose between good and evil. So, Christianity is based on personal responsibility, too. Western law is based precisely on a person's responsibility for choosing between good and evil, knowing right from wrong. That is both a Jewish and a Christian concept. So, your argument about the crucifixion makes no sense at all. The fact is that Islamic values with regard to human rights are different from western values; and that difference is clearly evident in the 1990 Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam which differs fundamentally from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which comes out of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Have you never read the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam? You really ought to read it. You can get it easily on the Internet. Then compare it to the UDHR, also easily available on the Internet. Then you will be in a position to discuss the differences in values between Islam, on the one hand, and the rest of the world, on the other.

Monte, in what sense does the Cairo declaration represent orthodox Islamic theology? Or are you cutting and pasting again as you usually do?

You are misstating Jewish and Christian theology in relation to vicarious sacrifice. Christian theology clearly states that the wages of sin are death. Hence, the vicarious sacrifice on the Cross is fundamental Christian doctrine based on the Christian understanding of Judaism which insists on an animal sacrifice for sin.

Further, it is fundamental Christian doctrine that humam beings inherit Adam's sin and his sinful nature. Human beings are therefore fundamentally sinful.

These are two major Christian doctrines. In what sense are these Christian doctrines reflected in Western values?

If you cannot show how these doctrines and beliefs are reflected in Western values, clearly your understanding of Western values is suspect.

Further, how do you explain the fact that much of the European Enlightenment was the result of the rediscovery of Greek philosophical texts as seen through the lenses of people like Avicenna and Averroes?

Finally, how do you explain the comment of a senior Australian judge to the effect that our entire system of alternative dispute resolution (as in mediation) is based upon procedures and methods borrowed from the Islamic sacred law on commercial dispute resolution?

Try to address these issues without cutting and pasting from JihadWatch.com. I realise independent thinking can be difficult for bigots. But if you try, you might well be able to come up with something factual all by yourself.

Irfy,
I am surprised that you do not know how the Cairo declaration represents orthodox Islamic theology. By the way, is there any other kind of Islamic theology than orthodox? If you read the Cairo declaration you will see that every one of the enumerated rights is circumscribed as having to be in accord with Sharia. So, Irfy, that is the sense in which the Cairo Declaration represents "orthodox" Islamic theology. I suggest that you read the Cairo Declaration and see for yourself.

Concerning Christian doctrine and western values, you are right that the doctrine of original sin is not part of western values. However, the doctrine of "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto the Lord what is the Lord's" is the very basis of western values, that is, the separation of religion and state. This totally conflicts with a fundamental Moslem doctrine that there is no such separation, that Islam is a total way of life which encompasses all aspects of life, both civic and religious. There is also the matter of arrogance. Christians may believe that they have the only reliable path to eternal salvation, but they do not believe that they are better people than others. Moslems do. It says so in the Koran that they are the noblest people, better than others. That, by the way, is also in the Cairo Declaration.

You mention the European Enlightenment being a result of rediscovery of Greek philosophical texts as seen through the lenses of people like Avicenna and Averroes. That is, to a large degree, true, but so what? Are you seriously going to say that this is an achievement of Islam? Why hasn't the Moslem world taken up those philosophical texts? Why hasn't the Moslem world followed Avicenna and Averroes? It turns out that those philosophers were not products of Islam, but aberrations from Islam which occurred within the Islamic empire but found no resonance in the world of Islamic theology.

I am glad to see that you are following jihadwatch.com. I hope you will learn something from that website. Everyone, Moslem and non-Moslem, should read it regularly.