Palo Alto, California

  Let’s begin with this disconcerting premise: that we live in a world where anti-Islamic sentiments are becoming increasingly less recognizable as hate speech: that is, as speech that attempts to injure through essentializations produced as ‘facts’. The most recent example of this ‘phenomena,’ emerges in “Going Muslim,” the article written for Forbes Magazine by NYU Stern Professor of Business and Hoover Institute Fellow, Tunku Varadarajan. In search of answers for why and how this widening space of acceptability is being produced, let’s turn to the rhetorical form and content of his article for Forbes.

Varadarajan begins by locating his argument in the context of the horrific Fort Hood killings undertaken by Nidal Hassan on November 5th. In attempting to understand how Hassan becomes ‘representative’ of American Muslims - indeed, to the extent that it necessitates the production of his theory, “going Muslim” - we have to assume that his narrative, although provoked by recent events at Fort Hood, is affected by an admixture of discourse around 9/11, the War on Terror and widespread American Punditry on what is referred to more generally as ‘the Muslim Problem.’

Embedded in his analysis is a warning to the American people of the presence of an enemy within: the seemingly integrated American Muslim who can, at any moment, drop the American and emerge simply and dangerously as a Muslim. The fundamental equivocation in this argument: lose the American and the threat of the Muslim emerges.

While he attempts to add a characteristically American flavor to the notion of “going Muslim” by placing it in conversation with a ‘phenomena’ more familiar – “going postal” - he quickly delineates their differences. If going postal describes a person who experiences a psychological snap, then going Muslim refers to a person who, in discarding “the camouflage of integration,” goes Muslim.

Whereas, the actions of the ‘postal’ individual are devoid of calculation, the acts of the ‘Muslim’ are overdetermined by it. Instead of presenting the possibility that one who ‘goes postal’ might have desired enacting the events leading up to that final fatal snap or that Nidal Hassan may have been a psychologically unstable individual, Varadarajan leads us to believe is that the most important lesson to be learned from the Fort Hood incident is that Nidal Hassan is not a singular individual but rather a type of Muslim – one who reveals a tendency that ought to be understood as an emerging threat from Muslims in America. The coherence of Varadarajan’s narrative depends upon a suspension of logic.

If this doesn’t compel a critical reading of his theory, then the set of assumptions that emerge in his analysis, particularly concerning what he has decided it means to be Muslim, ought to. The conflation between Islam and violence, of integration into American culture as an unreliable solution to the problem of Islam, and the equivocation between being Muslim and ‘being calculating’ are the epistemic basis of his argument. Yet, the absurdity of these assumptions does not restrict the possibility of Varadarajan's audience. Why? My own feeling is that this reveals something of the condition of the world we live in, a world in which these disturbing and homogenizing assumptions no longer strike us assumptions, and that this is particularly true when they are assumptions about Muslims.

In an attempt to get at the heart of the problem, Varadarajan then beseeches the U.S. government to relinquish political correctness and get down to the business of protecting Americans on the basis of this singular and totalizing fact: that “Going Muslim” is – to invoke the language of the 1994 Hollywood blockbuster hit - a “clear and present danger” in the United States. The fundamental flaw in this argument is that it requires we accept that the United States is concerned with political correctness, and more particularly, that is concerned about this correctness when it comes to Muslims.

It requires that we accept this even as the U.S. government continues indiscriminate and unconstitutional practices and policies like indefinite detention targeted at Muslims and carried out in the absence of due process and established evidentiary standards. It requires that we accept this even as the last decade of American history provides evidence for two detrimental wars that have undoubtedly changed the face and future of the Arab and Muslim world.

It requires also that we ignore the evidence produced on a 'smaller' scale - that we shut our eyes at border control offices filled by an overwhelming presence of Muslims. Similarly, we must forget that, in the not so distant past, we listened as candidate Obama reaffirmed that he was a “church going Christian” in order to evade the possibility of losing the election because of an ‘allegation’ tantamount to slander: that he might be Muslim.

In the face of this contrasting understanding of the presence and function of political correctness in the United States, particularly in matters concerning Islam and Muslims, I am left to believe that although the Professor and I reside in the same country, we experience very different worlds. Yet, in the aftermath of "Going Muslim", I shudder to think that in expressing these sentiments, I too might be categorized as an un-integrated American Muslim.

Of, course Varadarajan’s argument would be incomplete without policy recommendations for the State. To this end, he proposes “practical changes.” But if one takes a closer look at the language in these recommendations, there is a clear shift: he steps away from the heavy Muslim-centered approach of the preceding sections, now taking on more opaque language and logic.

Why this inconsistency? If his policy changes emerge in response to the growing threat of Muslims in America, then why shy away from spelling it out in the policy, particularly after he ostracizes the American state for its alleged political correctness? In the third of his four-part list of policy recommendations, he reveals this more ambiguous approach par excellence. In reference to instances in which military personnel suspect remarks or behavior of fellow members that might indicate unfitness for duty, he suggests: “there should be a single high-level Pentagon or army department that follows all such cases in real time, whether the potential ground for alarm is sympathy with white supremacism, radical Islamism, endorsement of suicide bombing or simple mental unfitness.”

Is he now saying that white supremacists might be ‘going Muslim’ as well? After expounding upon the inherent tendencies, and thus dangers, of Islam, are we being told that the 'Muslim' part of the phrase ‘going Muslim’ is less of a noun and more of a verb? That he is using this phrase to describe the calculating nature of individuals ‘like’ Nidal Hassan, who might technically be found amongst white supremacists as much as amongst what he, in this instance, for the first time, refers to as ‘radical’ Islamists?

How are we to interpret this shift in language from “going Muslim” to ‘radical’ Islamists? As an attempt to conflate Muslims and radical Islamists, or an attempt to distinguish between them in the final instance? Is this Varadarajan’s way of telling us it’s nothing personal? Of presenting his rhetoric as nothing, at least ultimately, injurious? And, are we supposed to interpret this shift as ingenious or insidious?

If that’s not the point either, or at least not the entire point, then in combining the theory - “going Muslim” - with his more general policy recommendations, he seems to be asking the government to continue doing what is has been for a while: produce seemingly indiscriminate policies on paper only to then exercise them in discriminating ways. Varadarajan’s argument requires moving between all sorts of points - at times totalizing, at times discriminating - in order to avoid being reduced to hate mongering.

If that’s the case, then no worries, Prof. Varadarajan, the state has got your back, but thank you for presenting them with a case for using this age-old technique in yet another context. It’s a potent reminder that Aldous Huxley was right when he noted the following about our experience of history: “from age to age, nothing changes and yet everything is completely different”.

In closing, here’s another one from Huxley, dedicated especially to the Professor, “A fanatic is a man who consciously over compensates a secret doubt.” Calling upon and speaking for the nation in order to assuage your own fears is not a new idea - the previous administration provides evidence for this - but let us see if it works. In the meantime, I’m developing a few of my own fears, particularly concerning the possibility of being under the tutelage of a professor who’s not only frightened by my Muslim presence, but who expresses this fear through hate speech that is neither recognized nor condemned as such.

Nice Article.
New terms are also coined to honor this moron:
1) “Going TunKu”: Highest form of bigotry
2) Tunkuism: Bigotry for Sale: when so called scholars are becoming fawning sycophants and engage in thought prostitution.

tunku’s main objective is to vilify Muslims by smearing their belief system to prove his point. Nevertheless, to give this fawning sycophant’s a taste of his own venom, then we can reference Kedar Joshi’ (ex-Hindu) argument in the “The Satanic Verses of Bhagavad-gita” as bases for establishing that Hinduism is terrorism and concludes that: “the message of Bhagavad-gita is to fight, if necessary with violent means, for the protection of the religion, say Hinduism; to annihilate those whose beliefs and practices are other than Hinduism, which would include atheists, free thinkers, other religious people like Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc. That is why Hinduism is terrorism. (For more info please consult my article 'The Satanic Verses of Bhagavad-gita'.)”.
Can we use this argument and the atrocities/massacres Hindu terrorist have committed against Christians and Muslims, to conclude the same about Hinduism? If we do, then we have “gone tunku” too!

Equally perplexing and disgusting that this moron (Vardarajan) used to write for the Wall Street Journal. In 2005, its editorial page described American Muslims as “role models both as Americans and as Muslims” (”Stars, Stripes, Crescent,” August 24, 2005).

This bigot thinks we are a bunch of idiots easily programmed to hate and engage in wars with muslim. Then he’ll find us another villain to hate.

The catalyst of this controversial article was of course the Fort Hood Massacre and the "suspect", Nidal Malik Hassan. I just went through Nidal's PowerPoint presentation that was supposed to be on a medical subject but instead seemed to discuss other "things". It was presented before a number of army doctors in 2007. Its a shame taxpayer money was spent to bankroll his education, he really didn't deserve it. This presentation makes you wonder if he even understood the concept of being a medical professional.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/gallery/2009/11/10/GA2009111000920.html

I think everyone can agree that most community college instructors would have given this dunce an F for wandering so spectacularly off topic. Looks like Tunku Varadarajan isn't the only example of a faulty academic thought. Maybe the key to preventing another Fort Hood is to simply start failing pathetic students like Nidal.

Let this be a lesson to us all that poorly crafted PowerPoint presentations can last an eternity.

Sir Magpie...

... you got something against community colleges?

To Bostonian...

I have nothing against community colleges. I personally love 'em. They may have modest resources and modest facilities, but the faculty and students are often truly inspiring.

The one thing that incensed me the most about Nidal's presentation was that if I pulled a stunt like that with any of my former instructors I would have failed their classes. To me the biggest question about Nidal is how he became a certified army psychiatrist in the first place? I don't think he was too insane to do the job, I just think he was academically unqualified (in addition to being ideologically conflicted).

Tunku Varadarajan, a moron, and a product of the Indian-Hindu Caste system and racism is showing his true colors; trying to hide how violent his own religion is: see the quote given belwo..


Kids find Indian mythological stories too violent.
Dear Mehhana, I am an American born Indian parent that was raised and educated in this country. I have a problem with reading stories from “Ramayana” and “Mahabharata” to my young children especially during their formative years. I consider these mythological stories to be very violent and not too different from the dueling exchanges that we see on modern TV or on the big screen. The aim of our mythological stories is to “teach” a moral lesson under the disguise of Rama or Krishna or countless number of Hindu gods. I find it very hard to justify the killing and the blood that was shed on the battlefield to my six and eight year old boys. These stories give them nightmares and they are afraid of being alone. How can I teach them about our mythology without the violence?” (INDIA TRIBUNE, 3302 West Peterson Avenue, Chicago, Illinois, USA 60659; December 6, 2003)

Crow >>>Let this be a lesson to us all that poorly crafted PowerPoint presentations can last an eternity.

Well so can newspaper articles and online comments. Lets just focus on the fact that academics are compromised by a need to appease the establishment, and since any racist anti-Muslimism has been OK'd in the media, people of less calibre are finding their way into the limelight. The academic credentials that SHOULD be queried by racists like Crow is that of Tunkus! You give us an example of this compromised intellectualism, because rather than deal with a brown nosing racist academic who discards all of his objectivity, you prefer to focus on Nidal.

I might be mistaken, but it seems to be trash Nidal week, and consequently trash Islam week in the US. Psychiatrists have the highest suicide rates amongst professionals world wide. More than that, Nidal had to debrief soldiers suffering with PTD (returning from Iraq), in a military that was increasingly suspicious of him because he was racially an Arab and Muslim. I don't see how bringing up some powerpoint presentation has any relevance when its obvious that him and his colleagues were accredited in a normal way through a functioning institution.

Mycube007 >>> These stories give them nightmares and they are afraid of being alone. How can I teach them about our mythology without the violence?

I suppose that religious instruction should always be taken with care. What are people teaching their kids when they're teaching their kids about the American civil war, or columbus arriving in the Americas? The amount of times the images of 9/11 attacks were displayed on TV, yet even Oprah pronounces "we will never forget". The only moral lesson emanating from the media is beards bad, revenge good. The amount of moralising around the appropriateness of religious education is absurd, when you consider the influence of modern media and consumerism as the modern standard for a civilised way of life.

It highly unfortunate that an intellectual's statements will be accepted by the sheeple as gospel simply becuase they were spoken by a mid-status professor. The fact that he ought to know better but does not speaks volumes about him and his environment.

>>More than that, Nidal had to debrief soldiers suffering with PTD (returning from Iraq)

Stop. There is no equivalence between being there and having to listen to other people who were actually there. No equivalence and no excuse either. And, yes, people who murder 13 people deserve to be bashed. Cry me a river...

OmarG >>> Stop. There is no equivalence between being there and having to listen to ...Cry me a river...

I'm only pointing out the obvious. Murders aside, there is a normal relationship between his experiences and his actions. The obvious elements of the crime are ignored in favour of "hidden Muslim" theory.

Can't this guy be charged with hate-speech?

I am trying to not get off topic, but here is a follow-up on everyone’s favorite (ex) substitute teacher Duane Reasoner Jr. who seems to partake in a little online hate speech himself. Info collected from the Washington Post and ABC News:

“Reasoner has not been seen at the mosque in recent weeks. He had been working as a substitute teacher for Killeen public schools, but a schools spokeswoman said last week that he is no longer employed.

“Duane Reasoner Jr., 18, who is said to have recently converted to Islam and attended the mosque. In the weeks before the shootings, he frequently was seen dining with Nidal Malik Hasan at the Golden Corral buffet restaurant in Killeen.”

“On personal Web sites, Reasoner displays provocative videos and photographs of Islamic radicals, including Awlaki. One of Reasoner's sites features a composite image of Osama Bin Laden presiding over a burning White House under siege by armed men in Arab dress.”

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/hasans-friend-proclaimed-extremist/story?id=9100187

“On his YouTube account, Reasoner chose as favorites 14 different videos by Anwar al-Awlaki. Reasoner also chose videos featuring Osama Bin Laden, the Taliban, Omar Abdur Rahman – the so-called "blind sheikh" now in prison in connection with the 1993 World Trade Center bombing -- and Adam Gadahn.”

So here you have the revelation that Hassan was dining with a like-minded individual, Duane Reasoner Jr. while he was in direct email communication with Anwar al-Awlaki. Duane Reasoner was also a fan of Awlaki's YouTube sermons. To me this is an interesting convergence of a disaffected solider, an increasingly radicalized youth and a notorious imam.

Could Duane Reasoner Jr. be some kind of protégé to Hassan as Hassan was an apparent follower of Awlaki?

No, SirMagpie. What do you think an unmarried 40 year-old Muslim guy would be doing with an 18 year old boy...

To OmarG:

That is an excellent alternate theory! It never crossed my mind that their apparent relationship could have gone in that direction. It would not be unheard of. I thank you for offering another plausible explanation; I shall try to be more open minded when digging into the stories and issues featured on this site.

People tried to explain, that a war, as indeed any war, would make people more militantly anti-American than ever before. Americans decided to flex the military muscle instead. Americans believe their superior position as a manifest destiny of their superior values. So they in turn intend to "civilise" the world, through compulsion. In doing so, providing proof for the ideological foundations of extremism.

Today Americans are surprised that even Amercian nationals have started picking up the banner of extremism ... ALL HAPPENING AFTER 9/11!? War is a moral grey area and always has been. And in that grey area, not only has one of the oldest civilisations been utterly destabilised, but now the chickens are coming home to roost too! The stresses of war, the effects on the American economy AND Global economy, the global citzenries moral repugnance at the way the war has played out ... THESE ARE CONSEQUENCES!

Continue to harp on about the new disaffected extremists, but don't look at your own nations role in stigmatising and creating them. An 18 year old extremist was 11 when 9/11 happened, 12 when Afghanistan was bombed, 13 when the now debunked Iraq war was entered into, 16 when Israel raided Lebanon. Again I ask. Why is Awlaki a free firebrand living comfortably in a US allied country? A known extremist and American citizen walks around preaching resistance hate and murder in a country that uses American weapons and salafi extremists to quell the rebellion of its citizens. While children are stil held captive at Guantanamo and some people have disappeared for years without trace?

Wake up guys. Pissing on people makes them mad. Most people act reasonably in the face of abuse and avoid the confrontation. But not everyone is a "reasonable" man as dictated by the law.

Secondly and more importantly ... why is it wrong to not sympathise with American victims of war, then completely rational to enter moralistic argument about the Muslim victims of war? People who are far greater in number and far less active in the confrontation than PAID VOLUNTEER SOLDIERS.

According to Kevin Barrett PhD - it's another Zionists' anti-Muslim piece of crap.

http://truthjihad.blogspot.com/2009/11/nauseating-ft-hood-wimpery-on-arab.html

Rehmat >>> According to Kevin Barrett PhD - it's another Zionists' anti-Muslim piece of crap.

What is another Zionists anti-Muslim crap?

This racist scumbag should be tried for inciting hate.

The disturbing thing is that he is supposed to be a university professor!

If that is the intellectual level of their educated folk, what about the level of their ignorant ones?

Many Hindus just live to hate Muslims. Im revent years I have seen more hate from Hindus than from Christians and Jews.