"My honest opinion is that Arabs are male chauvinists."

This was a quote by Yusof Halim, a prominent Muslim lawyer in Brunei, in a December 10, 2006 New York Times op-ed piece by Nicholas Kristof. The article, entitled, "The Muslim Stereotype" started out promisingly: "I find the common American stereotypes of Islam profoundly warped," Kristof wrote.

But then he explains that the stereotypes of Islam "are largely derived from the less than 20 percent of Muslims who are Arabs." Kristof continues: "There is a historic dichotomy between desert Islam - the austere fundamentalism of countries like Saudi Arabia - and riverine or coastal Islam, more outward-looking, flexible and tolerant. Desert Muslims grab the headlines, but my bet is that in the struggle for the soul of Islam, maritime Muslims have the edge."

On a superficial level, this is simply a case of anti-Arab prejudice. Not only is this idiocy printed in America's paper of record, but it is corroborated using a quote from one other individual who holds similar racist views. It's like someone saying, "Yes, Jews are greedy and blacks are thieves and here is a lawyer who feels the same way to prove it." But on a broader level, the article is a subtle way of encouraging a process that has already begun: fomenting disdain among non-Arab Muslims for Arabs.

Conflict and prejudice between Arabs and non-Arabs are nothing new in the Muslim world. There are legitimate criticisms of Arab behavior towards non-Arab Muslims, whether it's the treatment of guest workers in the Gulf countries or the snobbery expressed by some Arabs from the Haram during Hajj to the halls of the local mosque. However, version 2007 of this problem is part of a larger scheme to further the goals of the "war on terror" by purportedly ending terrorism against Western targets and bringing "democracy" (read: American hegemony) to the Muslim world.

Consider this phase one of the plan that has been articulated in the RAND Corporation's latest report issued last week entitled "Building Moderate Muslim Networks": "Instead of focusing on the Middle East, where most of the radical Islamic thought originates and is firmly entrenched, the report recommends reaching out to activists, leaders and intellectuals in Turkey, Southeast Asia, Europe and other open societies. The goal of this outreach would be to reverse the flow of ideas and have more democratic ideas flow back to the less fertile ground for moderate network-building of the Middle East."

The implied message is that Arabs are "extremists" and non-Arabs "moderates." Perhaps it would be more apt to say that the former are today's "field Negroes" and non-Arabs are being cultivated into the next "house Negroes." This was an example used by Malcolm X in a 1963 speech, reflecting on the state of African-Americans:

"There were two kinds of slaves, the house Negro and the field Negro. The house Negroes - they lived in the house with master, they dressed pretty good, they ate good because they ate his food - what he left. They lived in the attic or the basement, but still they lived near the master; and they loved the master more than the master loved himself... Whenever the master said 'we,' he said 'we.' That's how you can tell a house Negro... The field Negro was beaten from morning to night; he lived in a shack, in a hut; he wore old, castoff clothes. He hated his master. I say he hated his master. He was intelligent. That house Negro loved his master, but that field Negro - remember, they were in the majority, and they hated the master."

In other words, since the wonders of "freedom and democracy" seem to be lost on the "field Negroes" (Arabs) as evidenced by murder, mayhem and torture in Iraq, let's try cultivating some "house Negroes" (non-Arabs) elsewhere for the time being.

Muslims would be the primary beneficiaries of a world free of extremism and terrorism because they, more than any other group, are on its receiving end. According to the National Counterterrorism Center's Report on Incidents of Terrorism 2005, Muslims were the world's biggest victims of terrorism that year. However, any solution, especially one imposed from outside, that aims to "divide and conquer" is nothing less than colonialism rehashed in countries where citizens have had hundreds of years of experience being separated into "field Negroes" and "house Negroes."

America's battle for "hearts and minds", in the interest of ending terrorism and the Muslim world's enmity for it, will continue to fail as long as such strategies are used. Cultivating "house Negroes" in Indonesia and Turkey to keep down the "field Negroes" in the Arab world will only lead to further anger at the United States for its continued meddling in the domestic politics of, in this case, non-Arab countries.

Finally, Muslims in America and abroad must never succumb to the growing acceptance for anti-Arab prejudice and discrimination that remains politically correct in the US and the West in general, whether it's in stupid jokes or "intellectual" commentary like Kristof's. As our beloved Arab Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, said:

"All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over black nor a black has any superiority over white except by piety and good action. Learn that every Muslim is a brother to every Muslim and that the Muslims constitute one brotherhood."

Despite its constiutional spirit, Americans have institutionalised racialism at the broadest possible level.

While I love altmuslim, this article is obscene.

In your desire to not discriminate against Arabs, you just called everybody that is not an Arab House Negroes.

Hello?

While generalizing and stereotyping is indeed wrong, reaching out to SE Asia, Turkey, etc is a great idea because IT IS FACT that these societies are more open and tolerant and practice a much different tune of Islam then the majority of those in the Middle East.

Pakistani Islami is extremely tolerant and non-chauvinistic.

This article in trying to prevent anti-Arab prejudice is very offensive to non-Arab Muslims. There is no doubt that many non-Arab countries like Malaysia, Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh are more democratic than most Arab countries and have a much better record with regards to treating women and non-Muslims.

I am happy that the author quotes our dear Prophet [saw] last sermon...do Arabs in general follow this principle? They are so racist towards non-Arab Muslims, it is mind boggling. Many of the Arb nations which employ non-Arab Muslims practice apartheid at instituional levels.

Mr. Siddiqui may need to review the staff list of New York Times, as well as Weekly Standard. First, the guy he quotes is Kristof, not Kristol. Think maybe Siddiqui, perhaps more a freelance than a writer, confused an arch-radlib with an arch neocon, in many ways they look the same (pardon the racialism). Both are part of the chattering classes, noted for using their own steelhard stereotypes along with sweeping generalizations, historicist delusions, conspiracy theories, and name calling to win their points, sort of like this article does. For example: mixing and matching smoke and mirror halfbaked theories and bumpersticker rhetoric featuring Arabs, non-Arabs, moderate Muslims and non-Muslims, immoderate Muslims and non-Muslims, racist homogeneous and racist hetrogeneous societies, nationalists, pan-Islamists, isolationists, historical epochs and dynamics spanning several centuries, all resolved with a couple of simplistic, if not simple minded, bromides, mixed with a standard dose of anti-USA...what a mess, what a clumsy sleight of hand. The article started with a remark on Arab men, not Muslims. Perhaps if Kristof had avoided the obviously “racist” assumption that all Arabs are Muslims, or vice versa, and had discussed, for example, non-Arabs vs. Arabs or riverine and coastal men vs desert men, and their relative cultural tolerance, flexibility and openness to change, he could have avoided Mr. Siddiqui's wrath.

Mr. Siddiqui's article also illustrates pitfalls of crosscultural analysis, to which I hope my remarks won't also fall victim. But his interpretaion of US race history is a little to facile. To wit, Malcolm X wasn't describing "Negroes" in the present and future, but the past -- and in 1963, his racist and exclusivist message of violent change was already being transcended by MLK's vision and dream of races living in harmony and liberty. And both of their tragic deaths, as is the case with many other tragedies when properly understood, were the dialectic seed ground for tremendous change for the better. In that sense, perhaps MLK, and even Siddiqui, pointed to the spiritual truth and goal of moderates of all stripes: that all men are created equal, and that all men are my brothers, as I am brother to all men - we constitute a brotherhood, to the extent we will allow and tolerate. But brothers who fall for the divisive and dishonest arguments of those who raise false dichotomies, as are apparent in this article, must deal with immoderate and illiberal results. And, last but not least, please understand that RAND is just a think tank, although, of course, there are those who class it as a tool of the Zionist US conspiracy. RAND comes up with some great ideas, and some losers, but has no operational impact. People, not think tanks, are who reach out to other people.

I'm typically disturbed by how some immigrants and some of thier descendents appropriate Blackamerican history and culture for thier own ends. I wonder if this is simply part of the global appropriation of Blackamerican culture as protest (thinking of wiggers, chiggers and "miggers" now, too!). Or, if people are adopting Malcom X's rhetoric to americanize thier articles so that such attitudes seem home-grown or to give it an air of grass-roots. Either way, I'm disctinctly uncomfortable with such terminology. I'm often wary of some Arab immigrants, not from "the Jew Kristol", but from the mosque itself. Just because Ms Siddique (I think Samana is a female name, emjayinc) doesn't like Kristol's ideas (and rightly so), I hope she is also not suggesting the same tired and wholly untrue lie that Muslims don't have racial problems here in the US. It would be ashame to sweep it under the rug out of a misguided sense of circling the wagons...

Classic divide and conquer. Malcolm X's words are just as true today as they were over 40 years ago.

It seems that Samana is missing a crucial point in why Arabs are the symbols of anti-Islamic bigotry. In one word, Money. All of the Muslims of the rest of the world put together cannot have a fraction of the impact that the Arabs can have on the world! For that matter before the 1940s when the Europeans controlled the Oil fields, Arabs were no more abused and hated than Indians! So, if there is a reason to target Arabs today, it is the fact that they have enormous wealth and they can (and do, in many instances) use it to create chaos. It is human nature to target the most powerful quarter (or fraction thereof) of any population that is on the hot seat.

In India Muslim writers love to hate Brahmans because they are intellectual symbols; but in reality they are politically and economically powerless. So also to the rest of world Arabs are the symbols of the dangerous part of Islam because they have the money.

>> who raise false dichotomies, as are apparent in this article

False dichotomies! Everyday, the media presents a false dichotomy of bearded turbanned men who must be Arab and hence must be extremists. The blackest Sudanese to the palest Bosnian is classed as Arab or Arab-influenced if it suits the western classification of people. Muslims are being measured and quartered.

Be certain that most Muslims from the most democratic of nations to the most undemocratic of nations (and most non-American non-Muslims from Hait to Korea), are acutely aware that American efforts are at their very core .. evil (EVIL) manipulations if not sheer ignorance. Hardly an ounce of good in the constant barage of economic, diplomatic, military and academic pounding at the centre of the muslim world. As undemocratic as people may charge Arabs to be (something which always suited western interests till recently and somehow gets forgotten in the dialogue) .. not a single one of these anti-western peoples would consider shedding a tear first over the death of a boy American soldier who's being payed to be a crazed sociopath .. by a democratic government no less.

Suggesting that Muslims should succumb to western labels is the same as saying that the current global dispensation, standing as it does unequal, unjust and virulently corrupted by the wests capacity to indiscriminately consume resources and nations .. should be an acceptable human norm! Ever wonder the UN is so slow to "catch up" to the American interpretation of terrorism? Because every sane, thinking, non-American person fears more the perpetual economic and political manipulation presented by the US as its global model than any amount of angry Arabs and state terrorism sponsored by America (as it is indeed in Iraq).

>> RAND comes up with some great ideas

And what happens when people subscribe to false ideas presented by such thinktanks? And a think tank endorses persuading public opinion by feigning a countries links to terror and possession of weapons of mass destruction. Just a think tank. It seems even American thinktanks can kill!! lol .. it would be more funny if it weren't so true!

Suggesting that Muslims should succumb to western labels is the same as saying that the current global dispensation, standing as it does unequal, unjust and virulently corrupted by the wests capacity to indiscriminately consume resources and nations .. should be an acceptable human norm! Ever wonder why the UN is so slow to "catch up" to the American interpretation of terrorism? Because every sane, thinking, non-American person fears more the perpetual economic/political manipulation presented by the US and the state terrorism sponsored by America (as it is indeed in Iraq) as its global model .. and feared more than any amount of angry Arabs with a grudge.

>> they can (and do, in many instances) use it to create chaos

Not a single Arab nation possesses a decent military arsenal or even a nuclear weapon. What chaos are you talking about. The self-inflicted type?

>> In India Muslim writers love to hate Brahmans because they are intellectual symbols; but in reality they are politically and economically powerless.

Prove it. Prove that the weakest and poorest of Indias poor are actually empowered intellectuals "attacking" Brahmans.

>> It is human nature to target the most powerful quarter (or fraction thereof) of any population that is on the hot seat.

When you say hot seat .. you mean because they're racist police officers or Military officers with bloodied hands?

Having quickly scanned through the article, i dont get the impression that Samana treats the interplay of steretypes & imagery in sum-zero fashion (i.e. whats good for arabs is bad for non-arabs & vice-versa).From experience Ive seen that some quarters in the Muslim world ARE troubled by racial/ethnic sensitivity, heightnd & perpetuatd by differential treatmt.It should b rightly condemned & resolvd. In this article, Samana points to another reality--the unfair negative and stereotypical portrayal & treatment directd to Arabs in Western (esp Amer) media, whether Muslim or Christian.One person suggestd that it may have 2 do with relative wealth & power of Arab world.But hollywood stereotypes of Arabs are found in the movie/entertainmt productions since the first b&w years of the movie industry,in the 1920s & 30s,@ least way BEFORE the independence of most Arab states & the 20th Cent devlopt of contemporary statehood.Crucially, this imagery (which existed in books,lay talk,even among self-styled "intellectuals" or "experts"/"researchers") profused through Western culture BEFORE Mideast oil became a huge factor in global policies of competing industrialized powers.

This history may strongly substantiate a bigger theme here--that in coincidence w/, or for reasons of: European imperial explorations &/or expansions (ie colonialism);Western fascination & commercialization with the "exotic Orient";undertones re8d 2 Arab-Israeli conflict;the politics of cold war alliances;& self-gratifying (culturally, ethnically, and racially based) notions of European superiority--what Ed Said have critiqued as 'Orientalism', Europeans appear to have adoptd a reductionist view of the Mideast that merged "Arab" & "Middle East/Muslim world" into each other so much that they became synonyms, if not exact equivilents of one another.Whether consciously or not, these equivalating formulations helpd to the process of stereotyping peoples whose behaviors.cultures,etc they saw as 'bizare' or 'backwards'. Centuries earlier, when the Ottoman Empire was in the ascent, the word "turk" in European literature came to simply and stand for Muslims,regardless of ethnicity/lang,&more; often was a derogatory ref that implied backwardness of "Muslims."As another eg, In the 1970s/1980s,this confusion worked well to "publicize" to the Western audiences the emergence of Islamic Revolutionary Iran and the emergence of Palestinian hijackings.The enemy in a plot,whether Iran or Egyptian or Libyan or Palestinian or other,all bascially lookd the same or had the same defining general & common perameters--that of the womanizing "oil sheikh" or the dark-olive evil-eyed,greasy-haired & bearded who spoke incomprehensible gibberish w/sporadic injections of Arabic or Arabic-sounding words.In all,just about every single portrayal--which stood 4 "Muslims"/"mideast" period was molded from what Jack Shaheen called "reel bad arabs".

Finally, i am worried about any potential effect in the RAND study's race/ethnicity-based distinction may have in INCREASING racial/ethnic sensitivities existg among quarters of the Muslim pops. Reachg out is an excellent way to start building tolerance & bridging gaps.But an intelligent person may ask why base perference in selecting candidates on apparent identity factor?In Africa,prospective "partners" were @ times based on Europeans'def of suitability--based on ethnicty/race/tribal background,despite the fact that all livd under oppressive yolk of colonialism;in Rwanda & Burundi,the Belgians favored the Tutsi over the Hutu, gr8tly exacerb8g longstanding conflict btwn the 2 .B/c the Belgians alleged that Tutsi had "European" or "white" features, & more civlized than Hutu,this cre8d a directly increasd resentmt among Rwanda Hutu & provided a historical contxt 4 1960s Hutu Revolution w/mass crimes & explusions against Tutsi & served as 1 of many underlying backdrops 4 the psychotic & zealous hatred that cre8d 1994 genocide.The Brits fashiond Sierra Leone into two 1/2's:the colony &
protectorate- contrastg gr8ly in sophisti & livg standrds.Those more privelegd tended 2 b the "Krio" or "Creoles"--a disparate group of Africans freed from slavery mainly in the Carib,US,&Nova; Scotia (Can) & decendents. Since many spoke English or otherwise affili8d in w/Westrn socty,genrlly they were lookd upon & treatd more +vely than the indigenous Afr tribes-Mende & Temne livg in the remaing 2/3 or so of land mass of Sierra Leone.perhaps no coincidence that Krio mostly lived in or around Freetown,the most advancd & cosmo. Here 2 resentmt built up among the indigen toward Krio (who were actively encouragd by the Brits 2 settle in Sierra Leone as free persons. But like most other African nations, boundaries within and around both parts of Sierra Leone were arbitrarly drawn by Brits.) During & shortly after the independence movmt, the Mende & Temne parties sought to politically marginalize the Krio &
rep parties/movmts 2 the point that they nearly fully faded away from the political map in post-colonial sierra leone.These egs arent meant as exact comparisons, b/c these r clearly from the colonial period.They r 2 only show possible
consequences of RAND's policy if its designd 2 capitalize on racially/ethnically-associ8d distinctions or if it will b perceivd as such.

"I am happy that the author quotes our dear Prophet [saw] last sermon...do Arabs in general follow this principle? They are so racist towards non-Arab Muslims, it is mind boggling. Many of the Arb nations which employ non-Arab Muslims practice apartheid at instituional levels."

Dr. AkberYusuf makes a good point. Are Saudi Arabs closer to the example of Muhammad (PBUH) or closer to Abu Jahl?

Well, it is obviously working, ain't it? There are a number of racists who did show up here to support these ideas. Obviously there are problems in Arab culture as there are in other cultures. But some people seems to love to bash others while extoling themselves rather than giving naseeha. Look at those chauvinistic Arabs, we are so civilized. Look at those ghetto AAs, the rest are hardowrking, law-abiding citizens. Desis are so useless, wimpy, opportunisitc, while the rest are the happening, interesting and strong. These stupid stereotypes seem to be gaining flavor these days. Ms. Siddiqui quite rightly lays the facts out. We need to look inward and improve ourselves and communities rather than point fingers. For people who say, "man, I don't know, its just too bad coz of X or Y, I'm can't do much about it other than blame". Well, we don't need sad cynics polluting the discourse. If you have nothing positive to contribute, keep quiet. We are not interested in your whining or apologetics for racism.

>In India Muslim writers love to hate Brahmans because they are intellectual symbols<

Really? Brahmins are widely disliked because they are racist, communal overlords(self-declared Aryans) who believe in the subjegation of minorities as well as the vast majority of their co-religionists. Thats why low caste hindus convert to Christianity, Buddhism and Islam.

>> Look at those chauvinistic Arabs, we are so civilized. Look at those ghetto AAs, the rest are hardowrking, law-abiding citizens. Desis are so useless, wimpy, opportunisitc, while the rest are the happening, interesting and strong.

And you'll find these people saying "America is such a great country. We're so grateful for our freedom. I'm so lucky to be American. Allah bless America..." How do you reconcile the freedom built on such ill-gotten gains and then still have the nerve to dismantle the motives of others?

Why do I feel like Americans work harder to affect institutions outside their country (that don't affect them outside profit margins) than deal with the failings of their own institutions that have very real effects outside their country?

I definitely agree that racism and aweful treatment exists. Also we should not generalize about Arabs (or others) 2 the extent that we start creatg mutually exclusive categories about the characteristics (social, political, etc) of Arabs or others that can pit one against the other while furtherg racial sensitivities. that's what im afraid that RAND report might contribute to, instead of resolving existing problems.that's all

Unlike some of my fellow readers, I applaud Samana Siddiqui's turn of phrase. As a Blackamerican Muslim I have some understanding of what it might mean.

What Siddiqui's article address is not so much a particular state of political affairs, strategy of powers that be, or even the condition or Muslim societies. What it address is a mindset.

The psyche of the America and much of the West has since the time of Descartes (and perhaps earlier) been tied up in dichotomies of black and white. Good and ugly. Muslim and Christian. Jew and gentile. Backwards and enlightened. House negro and field negro.

Prior to this conceptual turn of fate, most wisdom traditions held that human beings and, for that matter, all of creation were part of one interconnected whole. Every thing in existence was part of and a reflection of every other thing. A universe of good an evil unfolded within each and every soul.

Praise be to God, there have always been voices east, north, south and west upholding a holistic vision of life. Today these voices are growing. Unfortunately, many Muslims are the first to forget that we are all the children of one set of parents created by one God. We Muslims quickly forget that all people share the same strengths and weaknesses and are all subject to the same destiny.

Returning to Siddiqui's article, I agree that many in their attack on Islam are driven by an Anti-Arab racism. The axe-grinding V.S. Naipaul went so far as to write a book trying to reduce Islam from its universal spiritual and ethical vision into "an Arab religion." And yes, we Muslims fall right into the same materialistic, nihilistic, racist trap.

Each time we non-Arab Muslims brag how tolerant and enlightened and pro-woman we and our societies are compared to the backward, oil-rich Arabs, we do everyone an injustice. Without articulating what Islam actually is we promote the idea it's a person's culture, race, country, civilization, or class that sets her apart.

God says in the Qur'an that he created our different nations and tribes that we might know one another. Knowing one another is part of a circle with knowing ourselves. The Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessing upon him, told us we were one body. If one part is injured the whole body reels sick. Instead of allowing limbs to be amputated, why don't we first strip down in front of the mirror and take a look at the heart of the truth. Beauty-spots, warts, and all.