US officials and American Muslim leaders agreed to work together to confront prejudice against Islam and also against America, writes M A Muqtedar Khan* On 4 December 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 organised by the Bridging the Divide Initiative of the Saban Centre 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 programme chair, 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 a rapidly increasing phenomenon in America, the government's position was that while there have been increased incidences of anti-Muslim incidents 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 11 September 2001. Stephen Grand, director of the US-Islamic World Programme welcomed the 40-plus participants from the US government and the Muslim community and launched the conference. Several participants from the Department of State, the Department of Homeland Security and associated agencies represented the government. Alina Romanowski, deputy-assistant secretary of state for professional and cultural affairs delivered the morning keynote address. Ambassador Martin Indyk, director of Saban Centre, introduced her. He underlined the importance of such dialogue at a time when the gap between America and the Muslim world appears to be widening. 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 marginalising violent extremists and confronting their ideology of hate and tyranny; and fostering a sense of 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. Romanowski agreed to relay the issues raised by the group during her session to others in the State 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 State Department. Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), 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 per cent in the last year, and that in the 10 years since 1995 that CAIR had collected data on Islamophobic incidents, it has shown nothing but a 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, executive director of the ISNA Leadership Development Centre, 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 that this message is spreading from the margins to the mainstream. A report entitled Blaming Islam authored by Safi and published by the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding was distributed at the event. Imam Mahdi Bray, executive director of 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 -- for example, its overzealous prosecution of the war on terror -- undercut Muslim civil rights and may also be contributing to growing instances of Islamophobia. Dan Sutherland, officer for civil rights at the Department of Homeland Security, delivered the afternoon keynote address. 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 rising hate crimes and anti-Muslim discourse in America head-on. He argued, based on 50 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 incidents of Islamophobic behaviour, but he also claimed that there were many incidents that were resolved in the favour of Muslims and he discussed a few cases where the government has interfered directly on behalf of Muslims. The government's case was very clear: yes, there are disturbingly large numbers of incidents that suggest that prejudice is at work. The overall picture, however, indicates that things are not as bad as some Muslim leaders are claiming them to be. The final panel of the day included Ahmed Younis, national director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, Imad-ad-Dean Ahmad of the Association of Muslim Social Scientists and myself of 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 -- and there are several surveys that speak to this reality -- American Muslims must be careful how they talk about Islamophobia. The panel also argued that American Muslims must work with the government to not only challenge anti-Islamic discourse that is spreading in the US but also work to correct misunderstandings that the government itself maybe harbouring about Islam and American Muslims. An additional theme that was explored was the need to challenge anti-Americanism spreading within the Muslim community. Recognising that anti- Americanism and Islamophobia feed one another, the panel 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. * The writer is an assistant professor at the University of Delaware and a non-resident senior fellow with the Saban Centre at the Brookings Institution.
