Event description from a 09/17 email from Dean of Students John McKnight:
Join us for in-depth exploration of how 9/11 has reshaped U.S. domestic and foreign policy over the past 23 years. Through an overview of key policies across four presidential administrations, Amena Ghaffar-Kucher will examine the enduring impacts of the 9/11 wars, evolving surveillance strategies, and shifting U.S. priorities in the Middle East. By connecting these policies to broader trends in counterterrorism and security, this event highlights the lasting influence of 9/11 on American governance and global power.

Although this seeming omission was the source of some concern among students, Dr. Ghaffar-Kucher did not shy away from the topics of Islamophobia, in fact making it a focal point of her presentation on U.S. foreign policy and its subsequent discussion, and included additional mentions regarding anti-Arab and anti-Palestinian sentiments.

Dr. Ghaffar-Kucher began her presentation with a timeline of significant events between 9/11 and today in order to demonstrate its lasting impact. She made it clear in her presentation that structural Islamophobia in the United States is not solely tied to 9/11, but rather is part of perennial fears of a greater “Islamic peril.” She emphasized the far-reaching dangers of Islamophobia, asserting that it affects not solely Muslims, but anyone perceived to be Muslim. This segued into an analysis of three distinct—yet often overlapping—forms of bigotry: Islamophobia, anti-Arab racism, and anti-Palestinian racism. Dr. Ghaffar-Kucher explained that Anti-Arab racism promotes stereotypes of Arabs as backwards and violent, and anti-Palestinian racism depicts them as terrorists when they resist occupation by Western powers. Anti-Palestinian racism, she clarified, also extends to those who support Palestine irrespective of race, religion, or ethnicity. She explained that these prejudicial attitudes are among the reasons why so many Americans support Ukraine but not Palestine, explaining that through a prejudice-warped lens, the 42,000+ Palestinian civilian casualties “are not worthy of our tears.”

Dr. Ghaffar-Kucher attributed the “perpetual war on terror” to these same attitudes. She explained that Islamophobia has been used to justify America’s imperialist actions during the war on terror under every American president since 9/11. Presidents Bush and Obama both acknowledged that terrorists are not representative of Muslims altogether—a sentiment not shared by President Trump—yet escalated counterterrorism measures that primarily impacted Muslim civilians. Dr. Ghaffar-Kucher wrapped up her presentation by discussing the popular narrative surrounding Muslims, Arabs, and Palestinians. She stated that the media contributes to these narratives by reinforcing sensationalized stereotypes of Muslims that frame them as perpetual suspects. This, she elaborated, has historically shaped public perceptions of Muslims in a negative fashion. She concluded by asserting that this history remains relevant today, particularly with the looming presidential election, and encouraged students to educate themselves with resources like “Teaching Beyond September 11th” in order to rectify the failure of many schools to properly teach these issues.

Transitioning the event into the Q&A portion, Dr. Ghaffar-Kucher began with a question for the audience, asking if anything in the presentation had surprised them. One student in attendance responded, expressing surprise that many Americans view 9/11 as a unifying force, explaining that in his and his parents’ experience the opposite was true. Several of the questions asked by the audience centered around the impact of presidential rhetoric in relation to presidential actions. Dr. Ghaffar-Kucher elucidated that while little distinguished the counterterrorism policies of Presidents Bush, Obama, Trump, and Biden, the “overt Islamophobia” in Trump’s rhetoric made him far more dangerous and legitimized hate crimes and harassment. When a question shifted the discussion towards the pro-Palestinian protests across college campuses, Dr. Ghaffar-Kucher shared her own anxieties about giving this presentation, anxieties developed as a result of rampant anti-Palestinian sentiment on campuses. She concluded the Q&A section by sharing a personal story about her son’s teacher intended to demonstrate the normalization of Islamophobia in the United States.

Reached for comment after the event, Dr. Ghaffar-Kucher responded to questions regarding the impacts of bigotry. She provided insight on how the prejudicial trifecta of Islamophobia, anti-Arab racism, and anti-Palestinian racism have combined to influence Western perspectives on Palestine and Israel. “Negative views of both Arabs and Muslims stretch back hundreds of years, and the events of 1948 further vilified Arabs,” she explained, claiming that demonizing Arabs, Muslims, and Palestinians “has helped justify policies and attitudes that dehumanize Palestinians and legitimize occupation,” something particularly evident in American foreign policy. She believes some who hold such prejudices are acting out of ignorance, which in turn is derived from an intentional “suppression of [Palestinian] history.” When asked about Islamophobia, anti-Arab sentiment, and anti-Palestinian sentiment on college campuses, Dr. Ghaffar-Kucher immediately pointed out that these prejudices are “not new on U.S. campuses.” She cited the fact that “many university leaders refused to name Palestine in their messages after October 7” as an example of both these prejudices and the aforementioned ignorance that fuels these beliefs, criticizing these administrators’ unwillingness to question why they refuse to acknowledge Palestine, adding that “willful ignorance has been incredibly harmful.” Explaining that such prejudice manifests in many ways, she highlighted the particular prominence of anti-Palestinian racism in the past year, lamenting “the backlash against student activism and civil disobedience—acts that are often celebrated in history.” She added that these three forms of prejudice “often intersect, leading to a compounded effect of discrimination.”

One cause for hope, however, is in college students’ efforts to combat these prejudices. Dr. Ghaffar-Kucher highlighted how students “are creating inclusive spaces for dialogue, supporting one another, and actively challenging harmful stereotypes.” She praised the students’ initiative in educating themselves and one another, as well as their coalition-building across groups. In particular, she expressed appreciation of the “Muslim-Jewish solidarity we’ve seen over the past year,” that challenges “all forms of oppression, including Islamophobia and antisemitism.” A major issue, she elaborated, “lies with our campus leaders…the Palestinian exception to free speech is a dark stain on our history, and history books will not look kindly on these leaders,” adding that they must confront their prejudices and recognize their complicity “in the various forms of oppression that exist on college campuses, whether that is anti-Palestinian sentiment, antisemitism, anti-Blackness, or Islamophobia.”

Source: Haverford’s Independent Student Newspaper

Robert Jenrick has been criticized by a rival for the Conservative leadership and Muslim parliamentarians for saying police should “immediately arrest” any protesters shouting “Allahu Akbar”, the Arabic phrase that means God is great.

The former immigration minister was speaking on Sky News about the accusations that police have been treating far-right marches and violence more harshly than other protests.

Jenrick said on Sky News he had been angered by the way pro-Palestinian demonstrations had been policed. “I have been very critical of police in the past, particularly around the attitude of some police forces to the protests we saw since [the Hamas attack on Israel on] 7 October.

“I thought it was quite wrong that somebody could shout ‘Allahu Akbar’ on the streets of London and not be immediately arrested; project genocidal chants on to Big Ben and not be immediately arrested. That attitude is wrong and I’ll always call out the police for it.”

Jenrick, who is one of the favorites to win the Conservative leadership, was criticized by Mel Stride, the former work and pensions secretary who is also vying for the leadership, as well as by the deputy prime minister, Angela Rayner, and the Conservative peer Sayeeda Warsi. Jenrick said his comments were about the words in the context of protests.

Stride said the “suggestion of wholesale criminalization of the words Allahu Akbar is unwise and insensitive”.

“Any threat in the use of these words can only ever be implied in the very rarest of circumstances,” he added. “Context clearly matters hugely here.”

Rayner, who was speaking in Rotherham as reports spread of further far-right violence on Wednesday night, August 7, said: “People like Robert Jenrick have been stirring up some of the problems that we’ve seen in our communities. Actually, what we want to see is communities coming together, and the vast majority of the public want to see that.”

Muslim politicians criticized the Tory former minister, one of six bidding to be the party’s next leader, accusing him of Islamophobia.

When Jenrick’s comments were first aired, Lady Warsi, a former Tory cabinet minister, wrote on X: “Every day before we start parliamentary business in the Commons and Lords we say a prayer and praise God – we say our parliamentary version of Allahu Akbars at the heart of democracy – a process Robert Jenrick is a part of. This language from Jenrick is more of his usual nasty divisive rhetoric – he is such a tool.”

Naz Shah, the MP for Bradford West, said: “This is complete ignorance and textbook Islamophobia from Robert Jenrick. It literally equates every Muslim in the world with extremism … It’s a basic Islamic saying that every Muslim in the world says in prayer.

“Imagine in this climate, either being that ignorant or deliberately trying to stigmatize all Muslims. He should apologize and speak to Muslim communities and learn more about our faith.”

Afzal Khan, another Labour MP, said: “Another day, another senior Tory being Islamophobic. Allahu Akbar means God is great – the Muslim equivalent of hallelujah. Jenrick’s confidence in going on national TV to say people should be arrested for saying Allahu Akbar exposes his deep-seated prejudice against Muslims.”

Speaking later on Times Radio, Jenrick stood by his comments. “I fundamentally disagree with Sayeeda Warsi … If a politician like myself, a political leader who aspires to be leader of the opposition of our country, cannot speak out about the undoubted problem we have as a country with Islamist extremism for fear of being falsely labelled as a racist by an individual such as Sayeeda Warsi, then that is a very troubling situation.”

The Muslim Council of Britain said: “We are shocked at Robert Jenrick’s claim on Sky News this morning that those who proclaim ‘God is great’ (or Allahu Akbar) in public should be arrested.

“As a prospective leader, Mr Jenrick should be showing leadership, reassuring our communities when fear is palpable. Instead, calling for a well-worn religious phrase to warrant arrest is the kind of divisive language we would come to expect by sections of the media and politicians. This divisive rhetoric has emboldened the far-right thugs we see on our streets today.

“He should apologize, fully retract his comments and speak to ordinary Muslims to understand why his remarks are so outrageous. Rather than inflaming tensions, he should focus on ways to bring communities together.”

Jenrick posted on X later on Wednesday, August 7, that he acknowledged it was a religious phrase, but said it could also be used as part of public disorder.

Following the backlash, the former immigration minister doubled down by posting a video on X of a march through Bolton with people chanting “Allahu Akbar”.

He said: “’Allahu Akbar’ is spoken peacefully and spiritually by millions of British Muslims in their daily lives. But the aggressive chanting below is intimidatory and threatening.

“And it’s an offence under Section 4 and 5 of the Public Order Act.”

But he was accused of trying to justify what he said rather than apologize by other senior Conservatives.

Baroness Warsi addressed Mr Jenrick directly on X, saying: “No Robert, you do not get to go on national broadcasters and say one thing and try and pretend you said something else after!

“If you genuinely feel your comments on Sky News were inappropriate, offensive, incendiary and anti Muslim (which they were) then start by apologizing.

“Then you can go back to pretending you a responsible candidate for the leadership of our party.”

Former Tory Foreign Office minister Lord Ahmad said the comments fuel Islamophobia “at a time when communal tensions are high”.

He said: “Don’t try and ‘qualify’ your comments – just apologize!”

Mr Jenrick also faced criticism from Muslim organizations, with the Muslim Council of Britain saying his remark “only goes to show that institutional Islamophobia is alive and well in the Conservative Party”.

Responding to Ms Rayner’s comments, a spokesperson for Mr Jenrick said: “Robert has called out all disorder in the strongest possible terms, whether from the far-right or retaliatory violence from sectarian mobs.

“We are yet to see one Labour politician do the same. The country needs strong leadership, not squeamishness.”

Source: The Guardian

Religion is a “red line” for many people, the study – based on a survey of 11,700 adults in England and Wales – will say. This is particularly so in the case of Muslims.

Almost three-quarters of non-black or Asian respondents said they were comfortable with a close relative marrying a black or Asian person, but only 43% were comfortable with a close relative marrying a Muslim.

Muslims were most often the subject of negative attitudes held by other faith groups, but were also the group most likely to hold negative attitudes towards people of other religions.

The researchers focused on the question of marriage as a way of measuring tolerance and prejudice. They found that the public is largely positive about intermarriage across ethnic and national lines. However, the word “Muslim” triggered more negative sentiment than the word “Pakistani”, even though the vast majority of British Pakistani people are Muslim.

Prejudice based on religion was stronger among people aged over 75, those with no or few educational qualifications, people from non-Asian ethnic minorities, and Baptists.

Men appear to be more uncomfortable than women about the idea of a close relative marrying someone from a different ethnic, national or religious background.

Among Hindus, Sikhs, Jews, Buddhists and people of no religion, the majority felt uncomfortable with the idea of a close relative marrying a Muslim. Among Christians, there was a significant minority.

A majority of Muslims were uncomfortable with the idea of a close relative marrying a Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish or Sikh person, or someone of no religion. Almost four in 10 Muslims were uncomfortable with a close relative marrying a Christian.

The study also found that attitudes within minority faith communities were undergoing significant generational shifts. In particular, British Muslim women were exercising more freedom to decide when, whom and how to marry.

Source: The Guardian