Article by Raja Abdulhaq

As soon as early election results pointed to a clear victory for former President Donald Trump, liberals took to social media to criticize American Muslims, Arabs and Latinos for not fully supporting Vice President Kamala Harris.

Social media posts ranged from calls to deport Muslims and Latinos to wishing for Trump to unleash more destruction on Gaza.

This backlash tactlessly showed the dynamics of how white liberals view the role of minorities, especially Muslims and Arabs, in American politics. In a classic display of the white savior complex, these communities were blamed for “not knowing what’s best for them”, as though Harris was running altruistically to protect them from the dangers of a second Trump presidency.

The fact that Harris’ presidential campaign centered on countering Trumpism showed a lack of genuine interest in tackling issues important to minority groups.

Democrats actually benefitted from Trump’s rise, which presented an opportunity for them to win votes freely by positioning themselves as the only alternative to outright fascism.

Yet, instead of looking inwards for answers on why Harris lost to a candidate as problematic as Trump, these liberal Democrats chose to reprimand minorities. Signaling a sense of superiority, they could not hide their racism, implying that it was incumbent upon these minority communities to vote within the guidelines provided by their liberal saviors.

By this logic, Arabs, Muslims and Latinos must vote for a Democrat no matter what. This viewpoint strips minority communities of their rights as equal citizens who can partake in the democratic process independently.

While the days of barring Black people and women from voting are behind us, this backlash brings to mind the same white supremacist logic: that non-whites are incapable of voting on their own and require guidance from their liberal saviors.

Arrogant disregard

In the months leading up to election day, Democrats ignored the cries of Muslims, Arabs and their allies to at least recognize the suffering of Palestinians in Gaza. They arrogantly disregarded warnings about potentially losing the Arab vote in Michigan due to Israel’s war on Gaza despite desperately needing to win the swing state to have any hope of beating Trump.

To make matters worse, former President Bill Clinton was sent to Michigan to patronize the Arab community, justifying Israeli crimes in Gaza by saying Israel had to kill civilians in order to defend itself.

This attitude towards voters in Michigan stemmed from a racist and orientalist notion that Arabs and Muslims would eventually fall in line, fearing Trump’s presidency.

Blaming Arabs, Muslims and Latinos for Harris’ humiliating defeat highlights the Democrats’ sense of entitlement to the votes of these communities. The rage-filled, racist attacks on social media marked the resulting tantrum of these liberal saviors.

Ignoring the real issues that enabled Trump’s victory, Democrats instead chose to blame those desperately trying to stop the ongoing mass murder of their loved ones in Gaza and Lebanon. Giving nothing in return, these Democrats wanted the grieving masses to forget about the US-enabled genocide overseas in order to defeat Trump domestically.

Both Republicans and Democrats view Israel as a strategic partner in maintaining American interests and hegemony in the Middle East. Opposing their unconditional US support for Israel is therefore portrayed as a betrayal of American national interests that cannot be tolerated in the political discourse.

Despite the lack of major Arab and Muslim endorsements for Harris, the Democratic Party did not entertain any demands of ending the Gaza genocide, asserting instead that the reward for helping Harris get elected would be to prevent another Trump presidency – thus placing the burden of “saving” democracy on to suffering communities.

The Uncommitted National Movement provided a golden opportunity for the Democratic establishment to acknowledge the grievances of Arabs and Muslims without requiring any policy concessions on Israel, especially given how naively loyal the movement proved to be.

But the compromises of the Uncommitted movement, which lowered its demands from an arms embargo on Israel to simply allowing a Palestinian-American speaker at the Democratic National Convention (DNC), were met with rude dismissals.

Calculated strategy

The Democratic Party’s refusal to negotiate with the communities affected by the Gaza genocide was not an oversight. It was a calculated decision based on prioritizing other potential voters, particularly white anti-Trump Republicans, as represented by Harris’ decision to campaign alongside politician Liz Cheney.

If Democrats truly valued Arabs and Muslims, rather than seeing them as secured votes in the bag, they would have, at the very least, found a more empathic way to dismiss their protests instead of shouting over them, as Harris infamously did: “I’m speaking.”

There is no doubt that the collective rage among liberals over losing the election to Trump comes from a place of cognitive dissonance influenced by American exceptionalism. How could the US – a beacon of liberal values and justice – elect a racist, misogynistic, xenophobic, convicted felon as its president?

Yet, rather than taking this opportunity to examine the many issues within American democracy and society – ranging from structural racism to economic inequality, monstrous foreign policies, and the malign influence of money and multinational corporations on politics – liberals are taking their frustrations out on disenfranchised communities.

Comments across social media following Trump’s victory showcase a serious resentment towards Arab and Muslim causes, especially the genocide in Gaza, displaying how superficial liberals’ past “support” for such causes actually was. Liberals are simply refusing to admit the Biden administration’s role in losing the Arab and Muslim vote.

This fallout puts Arab and Muslim communities at a critical juncture in terms of how they see themselves in relation to the US as a state and as an empire. The Gaza genocide has brought back discussions about the role of the US in destroying Arab and Muslim nations and the ethical responsibility of holding it accountable for these crimes.

Ultimately, the racism, orientalism and feeling of expendability that minority communities are experiencing after this election challenge the assumption that they can be integrated and included within American society and its supposed democracy. Is it even possible for Arabs and Muslims to be seen as equal citizens without compromising their social and political principles?

Source: Middle East Eye

On the streets of Bradford, where customers are inspecting colorful stacks of fruit and vegetables piled high outside the shops that sit in the shadow of tall minarets, assisted dying is not the hot topic of conversation.

Many here do not know that a debate on the issue is playing out in parliament, after Kim Leadbeater, the MP for nearby Spen Valley, put forward a private member’s bill proposing a change in the law.

Among those who are aware – doctors, community leaders, religious scholars – some say the concept is so alien to practicing Muslims, the debate will have passed many by. But there are concerns among professionals here that the bill could have unintended consequences in these communities.

According to the 2021 census, 30.5% of Bradford’s population identified as Muslim, the highest proportion in any UK city. “The concept of assisted dying doesn’t necessarily exist within the Muslim culture,” said Rashad Bokhari, the CEO of the Bradford Council of Mosques.

“The general perspective from an Islamic point of view, is very much … life is a gift from God. So God gives you life. God takes the life.”

Shabana Mahmood, the justice secretary, said she would vote against the bill, as it is incompatible with her faith.

Defying Cabinet Office advice for the government to remain neutral on the issue, she said that death is “not a service that the state should be offering”.

“As a Muslim, I have an unshakeable belief in the sanctity and the value of human life,” she told the Times.

But as well as being an issue of conscience for the city’s Muslims, the bill also comes against a backdrop in which faith and trust in the medical professional was eroded during the Covid pandemic, and where inequalities already exist in end-of-life care that some say are at risk of being deepened.

“The biggest barrier to good end-of-life care, including for those who don’t want their lives prolonged, are the huge inequalities in access to palliative care across the country,” said Jamilla Hussain, a consultant in palliative medicine at Bradford teaching hospitals NHS trust.

“The provision is patchy. We’re still very much relying on bake sales to fund our services, and we know every year over 100,000 people who need palliative care don’t get access to it.

“We know on top of that, people from ethnic minority backgrounds and those from more disadvantaged backgrounds, are some of the least likely to access our services,” she added.

Hussain, also an academic, is leading two nationally funded studies in Bradford: one addressing racism at the end of life and another looking at how minority ethnic people with frailty may be affected by prejudice and discrimination in their last years and months.

She said she has no moral objection to assisted dying, but among her professional concerns are that if it were on the table, it may lead to people who are fundamentally opposed to the practice being fearful to access end-of-life care.

“It’s not just the Muslim community,” she said. “I’ve discussed this with groups supporting the Roma community and the Black Caribbean communities too. They were all deeply shocked that something such as this was being considered in the UK and none were aware of the proposed legislation.

“And some even suggested they’d be so concerned that they’d rather take their loved ones abroad, potentially to countries with poorer health care provision in other ways, because they’d be so worried that their loved one would be exposed to assisted dying.”

Her concerns were echoed by Nadia Khan, a palliative care consultant and a spokeswoman from the British Islamic Medical Association.

The organization is opposed to assisted dying, she said, with its members holding practical and ethical concerns. “Our message very much is we need to be focusing on improving healthcare, and particularly palliative care for people coming towards the end of their life to make sure they’ve got the choice of having a dignified and comfortable death,” she said.

“Our concern particularly is around the widening of health inequality when it comes to good end of life care,” she added. “Following the Covid pandemic I think medical mistrust is certainly a feature, where deaths happened in hospital that were quick, unexpected, and people weren’t able to be with their loved ones.”

In Bradford, it is clear that Covid hit this community even harder than most. At the Khidmat Centre, which runs dedicated support services from elderly and vulnerable people from south Asian Communities, Javed Ashraf said the scars run are deep.

Six years ago land was bought for a new cemetery. “That land was supposed to last 10 years, and my mother got buried four or five weeks ago, and we’ve only got space for another 15, 20 graves,” he said. “We had so many deaths due to Covid, the cemetery has been filled up. So it had a huge, huge impact.”

The pandemic, Khan said, “created a cultural fear and mistrust around what was happening, and I think that has lingered, and there’s ongoing vaccine hesitancy.”

“We’re concerned that assisted dying, adding that as a potential ‘treatment’ for death will create even more barriers,” she said.

Some also hold fears that those who are already disadvantaged will be at more risk of abuse or exploitation of the legislation – Bradford is the fifth most income-deprived local authority in England.

“I think that this is somehow going to be quite dangerous and full of many risks, particularly for the poor people,” Mohammed Ajeeb, the former lord mayor of Braford, and a former Bradford city teaching primary care trust.

“I think this is wider than just a perspective from the Muslim community,” Faiz Ilyas, a Bradford councilor, added. “Around vulnerable people, and what are society’s expectations, what are the economic pressures that people are facing, what are the challenges that are going on?

“Is there a sense of vulnerability, or maybe even coercion that could occur in these sort of situations?”

Although much of the debate is happening 200 miles away in Westminster, Ilyas said the issue is now starting to filter through, and he has heard concerns from some in his community, adding “it does touch a nerve with people.”

Assisted dying will no doubt become more of a talking point, people here say.

In the Muslim faith, “death is very, very important,” Bokhari said, “and the respect and dignity of someone who’s passed away is paramount.”

“The only inevitable thing in life is death,” he added. “So this is something everyone should have a say in.”

Source: The Guardian

Last week, as far-right thugs targeted Muslims primarily, the former Conservative immigration minister Robert Jenrick told Sky News that saying “Allahu Akbar” —“God is greater”— in public should be an arrestable offence. This is a solemn phrase millions of British Muslims use daily.

Jenrick’s Islamophobia received no pushback from the interviewer, no response from his party leader, and led to no apology: a stark reflection of how Islamophobia has become acceptable, not just on the far right, but also in mainstream media and politics.

What makes it even worse is the context of his comments.

In Southport, a mob hurled bricks at a mosque, causing one worshipper, trapped along with the imam, to think he might die. Others attempted to set fire to a hotel in Rotherham used to house asylum seekers. Far-right thugs stopped cars in Middlesbrough to check if their drivers were white before letting them pass. A “large group of men” beat up a black man in Manchester, and a Muslim man was stabbed at a train station in Liverpool. In Hull, violent far-right rioters dragged an Asian man out of his car, while racially abusing him by repeatedly yelling “P**i”. Others shouted “fuck Muslims” in a “demonstration”, children were found screaming “who the fuck is Allah?” and other children joined their parents shouting “P***s out”. And some attacked an Islamic book stall in Liverpool, whilst others vandalized Muslim graves in Burnley.

There was a similar story online. According to researcher Marc Owen Jones, on X,65 per cent of impressions earned by posts about Muslims between 28th July and 9th August (155m impressions) were anti-Muslim or anti-migrant.

The appalling scale of the far-right thuggery led to a palpable and justifiable fear among Muslims and minority communities across the country. Even Humza Yousaf, former first minister of Scotland, shared that the riots made him question whether he and his family would remain in the UK. And the mayor of London Sadiq Khan shared that he did not feel safe as a Muslim politician in the wake of the riots.

In this environment, Jenrick felt confident in pushing out his hate and divisiveness. He was not alone. Elon Musk shared—and then deleted—a false post from the co-leader of the far-right Britain First party about the UK building “detainment camps” for rioters, and proclaimed that civil war in the UK was “inevitable”; Matthew Goodwin seemed to suggest that a “son of immigrants” is not really British; and Nigel Farage called “some of the actions” of far-right rioters “truly disgusting”—but also appeared to excuse rioters, saying it was “a reaction to fear, to discomfort, to unease that is out there shared by tens of millions of people.”

Certain news outlets followed suit. The Daily Telegraph headlined its front page “Far-right clash with Muslims in rioting”, and ran a host of frankly embarrassing and repulsive articles; and GB News consistently seems to be trying to make excuses for the far right.

You might argue that they are targeting the 34 per cent of Conservative party voters and 63 per cent of Reform voters who blamed Muslims for the riots.

Perhaps. But I think it goes deeper.

Too many people in positions of power have, for too long, denied Islamophobia, or outright encouraged it.

Let us not forget the rampant Islamophobia in the Conservative party: from Boris Johnson comparing Muslim women to “letterboxes”, which led to a 375 per cent rise in hate crime against Muslim women, to former culture secretary Nadine Dorries and current MP Bob Blackman retweeting Tommy Robinson.

Let us not forget the negative coverage of Muslims in the UK media, in which stereotypical tropes about them are regularly propagated. The editor of the Daily Express even admitted that the paper helped create “Islamophobic sentiment”. Research by the UNHCR found the Daily Mail and the Sun showed a hostility towards migrants that was “unique” among the newspapers they sampled.

There is a reason why approximately a third of the UK population endorse casual prejudices such as “Islam is a religion of violence” or “Muslims will never be as British as other British people”.

While we have seen fantastic examples of community, solidarity and allyship against racism, even belatedly from some of its worst perpetrators, we cannot get away from the fact that far-right Islamophobia has gained a public foothold.

And removing this foothold is not straightforward. It requires a reflection on the power dynamics and drivers of Islamophobia (and other forms of bigotry) in our society. There are some community-based and education-centric solutions, but there also needs to be a concerted effort to tackle it both from the very top, where influence sits.

In practice, this means (finally) appointing an Islamophobia adviser with support from Muslim communities to focus on the issue; adopting the APPG definition of Islamophobia—that it is “rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness”—as part of a broader effort to embed an understanding of this kind of racism in society; and implementing measures  requiring social media giants to refer breaches of the law to local police, as well as to monitor and penalize clear cases of incitement to racial or religious hatred.

It’s time to turn words into action, and to ensure that Islamophobia is challenged. The question is, do we have the will to do it?

Source: Prospect Magazine

US lawmakers have signed a letter calling on the heads of several government financial agencies to tighten regulations on financial crimes and safeguard against the discriminatory de-risking of Muslim American bank accounts. Senator Elizabeth Warren and Representative Ilhan Omar signed the letter along with nine other colleagues, calling for changes in financial regulations that banks adhere to.