In my last article about the hysteria around Canada’s Motion 103 on Islamophobia this past winter, I alluded to the idea that Islamophobia as a term might not accurately convey anti-Muslim bigotry or racialized hatred endured by Muslims. I also noted how in the discussions around the use of that term in the federal motion, Islamophobes who were arguing that the whole thing should be trashed were not actually interested in whether or not the term accurately described what Muslims face. They had their own hateful agenda centered on shutting down the motion and stirring up anger towards Muslims and the Liberals which became abundantly clear in the death threats and hate mail received in the tens of thousands by MP Iqra Khalid who put forth the motion.

But there are people who are actually concerned about whether or not the term Islamophobia is good enough. As an academic, I am preoccupied with not only definitions of terms but how people use and think of terms, irrespective of their official definitions. And I would say, yes, Islamophobia is insufficient for some of the phenomena we describe with that term. That doesn’t mean we should throw it out completely and I would even say that we could continue using it until we find something adequate to slowly replace it with and that replacement is successfully filtered into popular memory… but before I suggest what to do with it, I will talk about the reasons it just doesn’t work anymore.

  1. It centers the person who fears/hates. The first thing to note is that Islamophobia is not about what Muslims endure. Unlike racism, anti-Semitism or sexism, Islamophobia does not name the violence that Muslim people are faced with. It isn’t about the micro-aggressions, verbal assaults, fearing for one’s personal safety, systemic marginalization or obstacles Muslims face to self-actualization. It isn’t about having to watch your brethren globally massacred. It isn’t about how you feel when people demand that you apologize for the actions of extremist militants. None of that is really encapsulated in the term Islamophobia because a phobia is used to describe the irrational fears of the person who fears, not the person who has to deal with the symptoms of those fears. In this way, the term Islamophobia actually centers the person who either fears or hates Muslims, marginalizing Muslim voices in the very term which is meant to describe their marginalization in the first place.
  2. Not all hatred is rooted in fear. Using Islamophobia to refer to hatred and violence lobbed at Muslims assumes a subscription to what has become a pervasive (but false) axiom in our society: that the root of hatred is fear and ignorance. I actually do not believe this. The root of hatred is not always fear and it certainly is not always ignorance. In fact, historically, the root of hatred is more often power: the desire to consolidate, maintain, and build it. If this were not the case, we might have been able to sing kumbayah with hateful people like Hitler and his Nazi henchman to show them the err of their ways. But Hitler didn’t fear Jews and he certainly was not ignorant of some knowledge about them. He scapegoated Jews and other minorities to consolidate power according to his own warped worldview and the one he exploited in his society. Similarly, using a term which ends in -phobia connotes fear and ignorance, and subliminally excuses the person who hates.
  3. It conflates Islam and Muslims. Unsurprisingly, when people actually legitimately fear something, it usually isn’t “Islam(s)”, but some horrendous cultural practices found within the purview of some Muslims. By calling it Islamophobia, we conflate Islam with Muslims and basically declare them to be the same thing when they are not. Islam is a cultural and comprehensive philosophical, ethical, and legal system. People who use Christianoform secular definitions of “religion” think that separating Islam from bad cultural practices is a matter of separation “religion from culture.” This is a poor way of thinking of Islam. The term deen which Muslims use to refer to Islam better translates to “way of life” meaning a cultural system. Where people get caught up is in forgetting that people can actually subscribe to multiple cultural systems at any given time and some of those cultural expressions come to the fore dependent on the socio-political context they find themselves in. That’s a very simplified version of describing how we can get practices that are “unIslamic” in “Muslim” cultures. These practices might even be justified as Islamic but that doesn’t actually make them Islamic. So this conflation doesn’t work.
  4. It ignores the economy of hatred that produces Muslimophobia(?). Fear of Muslims by regular folks is very real. People are inundated daily by lies about Islam and Muslims, and they come to believe those things. Who wouldn’t fear a terrorist? Who wouldn’t fear the obscene garbage Saudi Arabia passes off as Islamic law these days? Crucifying teenagers? Lashing raped women? Come on, none of this bullshit has anything to do with Islam. What people see in places like KSA should be called what it is: Wahhabism – a 19th century political-cultural cult centered on the power of the Al-Saud family which obfuscates its false origins by masquerading as Islam. It is an insult to the Prophet sallahu alayhi wa salam and an abomination to the guidance sent to him by Allah that a government funding terror globally, obliterating women’s rights, and single-handedly causing the most recent man-made famine in Yemen could call itself “Islamic” or be the keepers of the Hijaz. Period. People are taught to believe that those things are Islam itself though and they rightly fear those things. But they are merely pawns in a much larger, transnational game of manufacturing consent for modern Crusades which generate untold wealth and power for elites in Western countries – and Islamophobia does not adequately describe that practice.

So what do I tentatively propose instead?

To describe the manufactured fears of cultural and political practices commonly found in Muslim cultures, especially when those fears are found in non-elite folks who do not hold positions of power, we might use the term Muslimophobia. These people tend only to keep their fears to themselves or they might talk about these fears in some groups. They are susceptible to becoming radicalized easily, particularly when preyed upon online. This group is also the easiest to change the minds and hearts of. They are the most likely to alter their worldviews through interaction with real Muslims and by learning more about Islam. These are the people whose attention community organizers should focus on in order to build numbers of allies.

To describe those who manufacture those fears for personal and political gain, we can say that they exhibit anti-Muslim hatred or bigotry. These people might be in government, policy-making, or media. They are harder to convince in terms of the unethical nature of their hatred. They often gain financially from their hatred and construct their identities around their hatred. If one manages to change these peoples’ minds, they become very strong allies and often center their lives on fighting anti-Muslim hatred to fill the void left by their hatred when they change their ways. Community organizers, advocates and lobbyists should focus on these people to build numbers of allies.

For those with a Crusading ethos who hold key power positions and have openly declared war on Islam with the hopes of obliterating the religion from the face of the earth, we might describe them as engaging in anti-Islamic hatred, repression and genocide. Their goal is to eliminate the cultural system of Islam from their borders and maybe even globally which would entail having to kill off Muslims. These people are like Nazis or are Nazis and should be treated as such.

These terms might not take hold right away but I am certainly going to try to start using them more frequently and encouraging others to do so as well.

What terms would you use?


16265681_10154323322850753_2679466403133227560_n

Nakita Valerio is an award-winning writer, academic, and community organizer based in Edmonton, Canada. She recently completed graduate studies and work as a research assistant in History and Islamic-Jewish Studies at the University of Alberta, as well as a research fellowship on Islamophobia and anti-Semitism for The Tessellate Institute. Nakita serves her community as the Vice President of External Affairs with Alberta Muslim Public Affairs Council (AMPAC), as an advisor for the Chester Ronning Center for the Study of Religion and Public Life,  and as a member of the Executive Fundraising Board for the YIWCL Cree Women’s Camp. Nakita is the co-founder of Bassma Primary School in El Attaouia, Morocco and is currently working on a graphic novel memoir weaving her experiences abroad with her community work and research.

 

This talk was delivered by Nakita Valerio on March 18, 2017 at the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints as part of the interfaith event, Religious Freedoms: A Community Conversation.

Assalamu ‘alaikum, peace be upon all of you.

I want to thank you all for having me here today, especially the organizers for putting together this wonderful day and program.  I want to begin by acknowledging that we are on Treaty 6 territory which is the traditional land of Indigenous peoples who have lived, gathered and passed through here for many thousands of years. In doing this, I want to convey my utmost respect for the dignified histories, languages and cultures of all First Peoples of Canada and reiterate that each and every one of us is a treaty person whether we arrived yesterday, are indigenous to the land, or were born here from settler-immigrant families. We all have a responsibility to uphold treaty values which include mutual respect and working to ensure we all remain here together.

I normally begin all of my lectures with treaty recognition but today it is especially important as I want to start my talk on religious freedoms by reading an excerpt from a different treaty – one written in the year 713, two years after the Muslim arrival from North Africa into what would be Al-Andalus – a Muslim polity in Europe for 750 years, and what is now known as Spain and Portugal. The Treaty of Tudmir was a peace treaty between ‘Abd al Aziz, the son of Musa ibn Nusair and Theodemir, the local ruler of an area called Murcia. The document is interesting because it counters the narrative that violent military victories are what enabled the conquest of the peninsula. In fact, it calls the entire notion of conquest into question as it suggests that the process of taking over the peninsula was gradual and piecemeal and required mutual respect and cooperation between incoming Muslims and their Christian and Jewish subjects. The treaty itself establishes the local religious communities as protected groups under Muslim rule, meaning a guarantee of their personal safety and allowing them to freely practice their religion in exchange for loyalty and (of course) becoming tax payers.

My point in bringing this treaty as an example is to show several things. Firstly, the idea of and anxieties about religious freedom go a lot further back into history than we think. And secondly, the very preoccupation with religious freedoms has historically been related to Muslim-Christian relations and how to navigate and negotiate our differences throughout our shared history together.

The Treaty of Tudmir is only one paragraph long, in which Abd al Aziz ibn Musa Ibn Nusair agrees not to set special conditions on the local Christians, nor harass them, nor remove them from local power. Christians would not be killed nor taken prisoner and they certainly wouldn’t be separated from their women and children (which was common practice in pre-Islamic conquests). Most importantly, the treaty notes that Christians and Jews “will not be coerced in matters of religion, their churches will not be burned, nor will sacred objects be taken from the realm.”

Much of this sentiment derives from the Qur’an itself, the Islamic Holy Book, believed by Muslims the world over to be the direct word of God, passed through the Angel Gabriel to Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessing be upon him) during the 7th century. Chapter 2, verse 256 of the Qur’an clearly states: “There is no compulsion where the religion is concerned.”

According to Islam, everyone has the right to live freely by his beliefs, whatever they may be. Anyone who wants to support a church, a synagogue or a mosque must be free to do so. In this sense, freedom of religion is one of the basic tenets of Islam, whether or not Muslim have been or are currently very good at implementing that.

So, if this has been a continuous preoccupation with religious freedom in Islam, being the most recent of the Abrahamic faiths, where do many of the modern problems concerning religious freedom come from then? Why are Muslims constantly in the news, particularly in secularized European and North American countries, and especially as it relates to their rights to worship, to build mosques, to pray and other rather simple aspects of Muslim life? Why are Muslim women, like me, constantly hearing about how our veils (worn freely for the sake of worshiping God through our modesty) are incompatible with things like Canadian values? When speaking of catastrophic refugee crises, why have many nations including America and at one point Canada, prioritized Christian refugees over Muslim ones because the latter seem incompatible with North American life? (leaving aside, of course, more important questions about the right to life and safety for these traumatized people fleeing terrible horror and tragedy) Why are these tensions continuously arising between Muslims and Christians? And more often and especially between Muslims and secular institutions?

The problem for me is an issue of translation and definition. Our ideas of religious freedom hinges on and differ based on how we define religion. In the verse of the Holy Qur’an that I quoted, about there being no compulsion in religion, I must note the term that God uses to refer to what we now call religion. In the original Arabic, which the Qur’an was sent down in, the term we now, in my opinion, improperly translate as religion is: Deen and this is largely where the issues stem from.

Deen is not the same thing as the current societal understanding of religion. Both of these terms have their historical geneaologies and both of them mean very different things according to those contexts. And our understanding of our terms has not been fully excavated or accurately translated. You know, academics in my circles are obsessed with defining terms because we know that defining them different ways manifests completely different understandings and social realities according to context and time. We build social worlds for ourselves based on how we define things, so it’s natural that when there is continuous issues, we would return to the terms as the root of our discrepancies.

The original Hebrew term, din, meant law or judgment and, in ancient Israel, often referred to governance and the Jewish legal system, as in beit din. In Islam, the term connotes government, law, reward, punishment, loyalty and submission. It is more accurately translated into our entire comprehensive way of life, or even more accurately, a cultural system.

This differs from the modern, especially secularized, understanding of the term religion. The term religion comes from a specifically Christian historical context but through time, has evolved beyond that and has come to relate primarily to one’s private beliefs about the “supernatural”. Because religion has come to mean what we privately believe about God, there is an assumption that we can simply keep those beliefs and our actions around them at home and the public sphere can somehow be a “neutral” space for community engagement whatever our backgrounds. Where Judaism and Islam are concerned first and foremost with practice and governing social behaviour, which is decidedly public, and we use appropriate terms that are reflective of that, the term religion in the definition of private beliefs, when applied to these systems simply doesn’t work.  It is most important to note that the assumption that the public space free of religion is EMPTY is simply a historical falsity. Just because a secular public sphere seems to be empty does not mean that it is and we all need to think critically about what cultural system is invisibly in place – what values are we taking for granted because we are continuously under the assumption that nothing is there?

A famous hadith (or historical testimony from one of the companions of Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him at the time he was alive) states that Muhammad said: “Deen is very easy and whoever overburdens himself with it will not be able to continue in that way. So you should not be extremists, but try to be near to perfection and receive the good tidings that you will be rewarded; and gain strength by worshiping in the mornings, the nights.” Here, it is clear that Deen must mean a complete way of life, and indeed, in Islam there are comprehensive guidances for almost everything you can imagine, from how and when to pray to how to brush your teeth, which shoes to wear, how to treat the environment, and what conduct is appropriate for dealing with our spouses, our families, our neighbours, our children and the wider communities. While the first pillar of Islam is, indeed, our declaration of faith, that there is no God except God and that Muhammad is the messenger of God, our way of life does not stop there.

Because Islam encompasses every detail of how we live our lives, it means that there can’t really be a secular, religion-free public sphere how people imagine it, as long as Muslims are around. Now before anyone thinks I am arguing that Muslims cannot live in secular society (which I am not) I want to state clearly and unequivocally, that historically Muslims have lived under persecution for their religion for hundreds of years, they have done so secretly for their very survival and will do whatever it takes to maintain their way of life, even if that mean, forcing it into the private sphere. But it doesn’t have to be that way.

Further, does this tension mean that Muslims do not follow local laws as some groups would improperly claim, that we instead only follow shariah and are trying to implement it locally and impose it on everyone? Of course not. Part of the guidance of our way of life is in following the leadership and rule of our local governments as long as they do not cause us to leave our spiritual path. And that spiritual path is for us alone. And if there are local laws against aspects of our way of life, as I said, we are also permitted to acquiesce to those laws, depending on the context and time.

What it does mean, and explains historically, is why Muslims and Jews and many other “religious” minorities have decidedly been the OTHER in secular historical contexts, often with catastrophic results (most notably the Holocaust and colonization). In fact, there are virtually no other religious groups in the world who define their ways of life as privitizable or somehow limited to their beliefs only. There are none. And Christian groups who focus a lot on governing social behaviour are now feeling the same pressure against their ways of life in the so-called “neutral” public sphere, despite the fact that such a concept historically originated in Christian contexts.

While this is only the beginning of a much more complex and deep discussion of religion as an entity, I do want to briefly meditate on what the way forward for religious freedom then is?  I would say, that the first place to start is in definitions and translation, and that begins with education. If Islam, Judaism and virtually all other ways of life were understood for what they are, it would become immediately clear that keeping the practices of those ways of life out of the public sphere will be very difficult. Not impossible, but difficult. And if the truth of diversity studies enhancing our shared communities has anything to say about it, it would be that keeping the practices of those ways of life out of the public sphere is also detrimental to our understanding of one another.We have to recognize that historically and presently, we are not incompatible with one another. We have coexisted for centuries. We have to stay firm that it is not an option that coexistence fails. It takes hard work and agreements, and that work begins with the work of translating how we understand our own ways of life and having others learn that too.

Now, lest someone argue that I am against secularism, I need only mention that it not secularism itself which is at the heart of these social ills and misunderstandings. It is the idea of a homogenized, so-called “empty” public sphere that is at the heart of these social ills and misunderstandings and which I demand critique of. If the public sphere was instead understood as a pluralistic and diverse space for multiple ways of life to coexist in the spirit of treaties from 1300 years ago – Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Brahmanism, the Sikh way of life, many others AND secularism, respectful of one anothers’ differences –  we could move forward in a much easier manner together. That is why I personally and professionally remain committed to protecting the religious freedoms of all ways of life, even when Islam is not part of the picture.

I look forward to speaking more to these issues on the panel.

Thank you.


16265681_10154323322850753_2679466403133227560_nNakita Valerio is an academic, activist and writer in the community. She is currently pursuing graduate studies in History and Islamic-Jewish Studies at the University of Alberta and sits on the advisory committee for the Chester Ronning Center for the Study of Religion and Public Life.  Nakita was named one of the Alberta Council for Global Cooperation’s Top 30 under 30 for 2015, and is the recipient of the 2016 Joseph-Armand Bombardier Canada Graduate Scholarship from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, as well as the Walter H. Johns Graduate Studies Fellowship. She has also been honoured with the State of Kuwait, the Queen Elizabeth II and the Frank W Peers Awards for Graduate Studies in 2015. She has been recognized by Rotary International with an Award for Excellence in Service to Humanity and has been named one of Edmonton’s “Difference Makers” for 2015 by the Edmonton Journal. Nakita is the co-founder of Bassma Primary School in El Attaouia, Morocco and the Vice President of External Affairs with the Alberta Muslim Public Affairs Council.

It has been almost 2 years since The Drawing Board was launched as a business and, in particular, as an activist blog. Since that time, our traffic stats have only continued to grow exponentially. Last year, we updated you on some of the exciting places that people are reading The Drawing Board blog. With increased stats this year and a shift in what we are writing about, those places have shifted as well!

tumblr_lybuyoQ6651r2b1v8o1_1280

Here are the top 20 places that people around the world are reading The Drawing Board!

  • Canada
  • United States
  • United Kingdom
  • India
  • Australia
  • Brazil
  • Germany
  • Malaysia
  • South Africa
  • Pakistan
  • Italy
  • Singapore
  • United Arab Emirates
  • France
  • Indonesia
  • The Philippines
  • Kenya
  • Austria
  • Slovenia
  • Egypt