Blogs > Cliopatria > A Muslim Like Obama

Dec 3, 2007

A Muslim Like Obama




Sir, you make a mistake listening to people who tell you how much our stand alienates black men in this country. I'd guess actually we have the sympathy of 90 percent of the black people. There are 20,000,000 dormant Muslims in America. A Muslim to us is somebody who is for the black man; I don't care if he goes to the Baptist Church seven days a week. The Honorable Elijah Muhammad says that a black man is born a Muslim by nature. There are millions of Muslims not aware of it now. All of them will be Muslims when they wake up; that's what's meant by the Resurrection.Malcolm X in a conversation with Alex Haley, Playboy Magazine, May, 1963.

The recent week has seen two major stories about the political baggage of"being Muslim" in United States.

The first was Mitt Romney's refusal to consider a Muslim as a Presidential advisor in his Cabinet - specifically to advise him on"jihadism" (obviously, that is the only field in which a Muslim can claim expertise). On Nov 27th, Mansoor Ijaz,"an American-born citizen of the Islamic faith", reported this exchange in the CSM:

I asked Mr. Romney whether he would consider including qualified Americans of the Islamic faith in his cabinet as advisers on national security matters, given his position that"jihadism" is the principal foreign policy threat facing America today. He answered,"…based on the numbers of American Muslims [as a percentage] in our population, I cannot see that a cabinet position would be justified. But of course, I would imagine that Muslims could serve at lower levels of my administration."


Mitt Romney denied that he expressed this as reported, but multiple sources have since emerged confirming Ijaz's account. The story, as it was covered on DailyTPM, Freepers, etc., received lots of comments that generally tended to agree with Romney."Having a muslim in the cabinet would be like having a Japanese guy in the cabinet in WWII" and"Wait... how does this hurt Romney?!? From what I can see, he will get a bounce out of this! Much of middle America would strongly support his perspective and likely hold it themselves".

The other story was the WaPo front page story, Foes Use Obama's Muslim Ties to Fuel Rumors About Him, Nov 29, 2007:

Since declaring his candidacy for president in February, Obama, a member of a congregation of the United Church of Christ in Chicago, has had to address assertions that he is a Muslim or that he had received training in Islam in Indonesia, where he lived from ages 6 to 10. While his father was an atheist and his mother did not practice religion, Obama's stepfather did occasionally attend services at a mosque there.

Despite his denials, rumors and e-mails circulating on the Internet continue to allege that Obama (D-Ill.) is a Muslim, a"Muslim plant" in a conspiracy against America, and that, if elected president, he would take the oath of office using a Koran, rather than a Bible, as did Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), the only Muslim in Congress, when he was sworn in earlier this year.


We live in a rumor-based society where spurious flyers can derail campaigns and invented words like"swift-boating" scarcely raise a Colbert eyebrow. So it is no surprise that such internet rumors are given equal credence by the WaPo. The entire story is written with the"he said/they say/people claim" and the denials are restricted solely for the campaign - which"keeps a letter at its offices, signed by five members of the local clergy, vouching for the candidate's Christian faith" - and for Obama -"If I were a Muslim, I would let you know". At no point, does WaPo sully itself by actually reporting that Obama is not a Muslim. Understandably, some are upset at the WaPo.

It is perhaps no great shock to anyone that a healthy amount of Islamophobia exists in the current political and cultural climate. The absurdities of teddy bears named Muhammad are constantly played in our media as de facto expressions of an irrational and medieval faith - with nary a word on the political machinations behind the street protests.

These stories about Obama's faith and Romney's Islamophobia, however, cannot be lumped in with the more generic fear of a Muslim planet. They illustrate, much more starkly, the fear of hidden loyalties within a population that cannot ever be assimilated (birth in America being no benefit) and draw on a more a complicated history in America - a history of Islam's arrival and subsequent life on American soil - which is intertwined with the history of slavery and an oppressed minority. Islamdom's medieval encounter with Christendom has received ample historical and scholarly attention but the American continent has largely remained unexamined. Or if examined, it is noted for obscurity.

Islam came to America with the Africans who were kidnapped, enslaved and shipped to the New World for labor. Here is an early Virginia Law from James City, 1682 covering Muslims (negroes, moores, mollatoes), mandatory conversions, and the continuance of the state of slavery:

An act to repeale a former law makeing Indians and others ffree.

WHEREAS by the 12 act of assembly held att James Citty the 3d day of October, Anno Domini 1670, entituled an act declareing who shall be slaves, it is enacted that all servants not being christians, being imported into this country by shipping shall be slaves, but what shall come by land shall serve if boyes and girles untill thirty yeares of age, if men or women, twelve yeares and noe longer; and for as much as many negroes, moores, mollatoes and others borne of and in heathenish, idollatrous, pagan and mahometan parentage and country have heretofore, and hereafter may be purchased, procured, or otherwise obteigned as slaves of, from or out of such their heathenish country by some well disposed christian, who after such their obteining and purchaseing such negroe, moor, or molatto as their slave out of a pious zeale, have wrought the conversion of such slave to the christian faith, which by the laws of this country doth not manumitt them or make them free,

.... And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid that all servants except Turkes and Moores, whilest in amity with his majesty which from and after publication of this act shall be brought or imported into this country, either by sea or land, whether Negroes, Moors, Mollattoes or Indians, who and whose parentage and native country are not christian at the time of their first purchase of such servant by some christian, although afterwards, and before such their importation and bringing into this country, they shall be converted to the christian faith; and all Indians which shall hereafter be sold by our neighbouring Indians, or any other trafiqueing with us as for slaves are hereby adjudged, deemed and taken, and shall be adjudged, deemed and taken to be slaves to all intents.


These Muslim"slaves, Africans, mulatto's, moors and all" - unable to change their beings, whether converted or not - largely disappear from the main streams of American historiography, even as fears of rebellions, miscegenation and foreign loyalties plague the white American imagination.

The Ahmadiyya movement, the Babist movement and a world wide 'resurgence of Islam' were key anxieties for the American public at the turn of the century. Babist Propaganda Making Headway Here declared an alarmed NYT in December, 1904. Islam Gaining on Christianity; Missionaries Admit They Are Losing Ground Against the Teachers of the Koran was heard a decade later. The emergence of the Moorish Science Temple and the Nation of Islam in the 1920s and 1930s - led by Nobel Drew Ali and Elijah Mohammad - certainly crystallized these fears: Calls Negroes to Islam; Detroit Man Would Lead Exodus to Anatolia, Fleeing Color Prejudice. FBI surveillance, community policing and militia-formation ensued.

The rumors about Obama's faith, then, are not just manifestations of a post 9/11 Islamophobia or a peculiar xenophobia about his African father. They are, in fact, uniquely American - based on our long history of mis-trust and mis-apprehension of a faith that we associate with our own 'Others'.

Last week, I signed my name to a public statement issued by Historians for Obama. I wasn't too enamored by the statement itself; I thought that historians could certainly demonstrate the historical import behind Barack Obama's candidacy much more forcefully. I hope that historians who signed that statement will carry forward their impulse. I hope they write about the burdens of history hoisted upon Barack Obama as he moves towards the nomination. He is certainly a unique individual, and uniquely placed, to force this nation to remember, again and again, what it constantly chooses to forget - its histories of oppression, fear and hatred. Barack Obama's own personal history is a testament to a brighter future for our nation. We can certainly make that case to the American public on his behalf - perhaps even counter some rumors.



comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:


Ralph E. Luker - 12/4/2007

I don't think that the phrase is unfortunate. It takes note of a history of American racism, a racism that has confined the presidency to white men; and it might be used, just as appropriately if it referred to Hillary because her election would undo the restriction against women in that office. What is so difficult about that? If you think, as you've said, that we should ignore those kinds of breakthroughs, you're welcome to think that.


Jeremy Young - 12/4/2007

I'm confused. We're talking about that term because you objected, back here, to what I said about it in my statement. I don't claim the term speaks for the whole text; it's only a small part, and in a comprehensive critique of the piece deserves only the small paragraph I gave it.

I don't think it was any of the signers' intention to imply that anyone should vote for Obama because of his race. Frankly, I still can't figure out what the intent of that passage was. It was a very unfortunate turn of phrase, I think. I also think Manan's last paragraph in this post was unfortunately phrased. And similarly, I can't figure out what he is trying to say, or why he would phrase it like that.


Ralph E. Luker - 12/4/2007

I'm not responding primarily to your statement on the mainpage, but to the claims that you've made here at Cliopatria. Here, you fix exclusively on a single term, as if it spoke for the whole document. You apparently take Manan Ahmed's word that that wasn't *his* intention in signing the document. Why assume that it was the intention of 70+ other historians?
Jesse Jackson didn't "carry" eleven states. He won a plurality of votes in eleven states in Democratic primaries. You've noticed that there are several differences there. Right? You know: plurality/majority; primary elections/general elections. Jesse Jackson had *no* "path to the presidency," any more than he had any qualifications to be President. Jesse's candidacy was strictly a function of the kind of identity politics that Obama's isn't and that you're now trying to claim that it is.


Serge Lelouche - 12/4/2007

That's admirable. Let's hope he returns the favor. So far it's not looking good.


Jeremy Young - 12/4/2007

I did. And I respect him enough to disagree with him without resorting to ad hominems -- both because of his scholarly output and because of his personal integrity as demonstrated repeatedly online.


Jeremy Young - 12/4/2007

I'm not entirely sure how to respond to your first paragraph, except to say that my entire essay is structured to respond to the "other, larger claims," and I give only a one-paragraph aside to the race issue (or non-issue, as the case may be). If you think I've ignored something specific in the original statement, say so.

I have to disagree with you on Al Smith. Al Smith's candidacy transformed American politics; his defeat had more to do with Prohibition and Hoover's popularity than it did with his religious views. There are many reasons candidates lose elections, and arguing that just because a nominee loses he has failed to prove that he can win implies that only the winners matter in history. I can't agree with that.

Jesse Jackson won eleven states in 1988, led in national polls until the middle of the campaign, finished second in the final delegate count, and was the last man standing against Dukakis. If not for Al Gore's race-baiting in the South against him, he could easily have won the nomination (though his road to the presidency would have been a hard one). And while admittedly Dole was not as formidable a candidate as Clinton is, she did register second in the polls until the time she dropped out of the race -- something that was not the case with Shirley Chisholm.


Serge Lelouche - 12/4/2007

Did you read his last post?


Ralph E. Luker - 12/4/2007

I'd recommend that you just look back at your history of commentary here. It is relentlessly hostile, often personal, and then you complain of ad-hominem when fed some of your own brew.


Ralph E. Luker - 12/4/2007

No, that isn't "the heart of the issue." It becomes that only if you fix on one term and ignore the context in which it appears -- which makes other, larger claims about Obama's candidacy.
Your reading of American presidential campaigns is remarkably naive. Al Smith proved that a Roman Catholic could be nominated by a major party. He failed -- rather disastrously -- to prove that a Roman Catholic could be elected President. He probably would have been defeated without the anti-Catholic factor, but it added to Herbert Hoover's huge landslide.
And Obama's candidacy is so far beyond Elizabeth Dole's and Jesse Jackson's in terms of serious competition that you've gotta be kidding. Dole's campaign collapsed months before the first primary! Why not cite a twofer and claim that Shirley Chisholm "proved" that an African-American woman could be a serious contender? That would make as much sense as some of the other things you've claimed here.


Serge Lelouche - 12/4/2007

I'm so glad you remember me. Just because I chose not to do Bray's research for him, doesn't mean I am a coward. If that were the case . . .well, you know the rest. Spreading the ad-hominem quite liberally this evening, aren't we?


Jeremy Young - 12/4/2007

I also know Ralph well enough (albeit only online) to know that he doesn't intentionally dodge hard questions. If he and I haven't found the source of our disagreement yet (and I think we have; see above), it's not through any lack of integrity on his part, but owing to our uncertainty as to where the other one stands.


Jeremy Young - 12/4/2007

I don't consider the election of JFK a breakthrough in American political history -- the breakthrough was that a Catholic was viewed as a serious contender, and it came with Al Smith in 1928. The breakthroughs that come from Obama and Clinton being viewed as serious contenders already occurred with Jesse Jackson in 1988 and Elizabeth Dole in 2000. Indeed, the only real breakthrough going on in this election is that a Mormon, Mitt Romney, is viewed as a serious contender, and it happened as soon as he announced he was running. (George Romney and Orrin Hatch came before him, but they weren't significant contenders.)

I think we've gotten to the heart of the issue here, which is that I don't view the election of a member of an underprivileged group as a victory for progress in and of itself -- because I don't think that's the goal, to "end the white male monopoly of the Presidency" as Francis Holland puts it. The goal is to end the "othering" of those who are different from the dominant group in race, creed, or gender, to see black people and female people and Catholic people as just people, and to evaluate them on their own merits rather than on their inherited attributes. Pursuing color-blindness doesn't mean that we can't recognize the effect Obama's race has on his chances, but it does mean that we should work to minimize that effect, to judge him on his own terms, "by the content of his character" as MLK puts it.

When we can look at Obama and see Obama, rather than a symbolic strike against racism -- when we can view him, in short, in the same way we view Giuliani, as not Italian-American but American -- then we will have achieved a more important victory, to my mind, than what the election of a black President would accomplish. I think emphasizing the symbolism of Obama's election hinders that process and is counterproductive to the society we hope as historians to achieve.


Ralph E. Luker - 12/4/2007

Serge Lelouche tucked his tail between his legs and, reversed directions, as it were, to hightail it out of here when Chris Bray last confronted him. We understand your bitterness, Serge.


Serge Lelouche - 12/4/2007

It does seem Mr. Luker doesn't is unwilling to address the specifics of your complaint. If the past is any indication he will merely reiterate how this is your problem. You know you're correct, and so do some of the readers of Cliopatria. But that may have to suffice.


Ralph E. Luker - 12/4/2007

a) I don't speak for 70 historians. So, put that aside.
b) You insist on the most negative possible reading of things. Do you know what an analogy is? Did I *say* that we need affirmative action for the presidency? Consider the possibility if you read it as an analogy. Do you consider the election of JFK a breakthrough in American political history: that a Roman Catholic *could* be elected President? Would you consider the election of Hillary Clinton a breakthrough in American politics: that a woman *could* be elected President? *If* you don't, you need to look back at the history of the American presidency, with some attention to details of gender, religion, race, etc. Don't be obtuse, Jeremy.


Jeremy Young - 12/4/2007

My position on affirmative action has evolved over time. I would now say that I support it, though I wish it were based on income level rather than race.

But are you really suggesting that we need affirmative action for Presidents? And that seventy prominent members of the historical profession, including several former AHA Presidents, support such a scheme?


Ralph E. Luker - 12/4/2007

Sorry you are troubled. I assume that affirmative action troubled you, as well.


Jeremy Young - 12/4/2007

I don't cherry-pick the sentence, I attempt to refute the entire sentence, in parts, throughout my essay. The sentence contains three arguments: 1) Obama is like Kennedy, 2) Obama is charismatic and thoughtful, 3) voting for Obama is "a symbolic opportunity to break with a tradition of bigotry." I refute #1 in my paragraph on Eisenhower and bipartisanship, #2 in my paragraph on Obama's equivocating campaign, and #3 in the paragraph you reference.

I'll readily admit that the "Historians for Obama" statement doesn't claim that Obama's race is the main or only reason to vote for him. But I don't see how you can argue that it doesn't suggest having a black president would be a nice victory against racism, and thus imply that his race should be viewed as a net plus when deciding who to vote for. Other than noting that some people will view his race as either a net positive or negative, I think historians should refrain from discussing it at all. The fact that Obama can run for President and be taken seriously speaks well for our society because it means that many people have moved past viewing (white) race as a prerequisite for public office. Most people correctly assume that race is simply immaterial to one's ability to be President; historians should encourage that perception, not emphasize Obama's race in an endorsement post. I think the fact that it was brought up in the statement at all is very troubling.


Jeremy Young - 12/4/2007

Then would you care to explicate that paragraph further? Because that is how it reads.


Manan Ahmed - 12/4/2007

No, I am not making the case that we should vote for Obama because he is a black man. Or any of the extensions you imply.


Ralph E. Luker - 12/4/2007

From a compound sentence -- "Not since John F. Kennedy has a Democrat candidate for president showed the same combination of charisma and thoughtfulness - or provided Americans with a symbolic opportunity to break with a tradition of bigotry older than the nation itself." -- you cherry-pick the term that might seem to justify your argument. The sentence offers, first, alternative reasons to support Obama, and adds the "symbolic". Outside the Roman Catholic community, there probably weren't many voters making the argument as their major premise that one should vote for JFK *because* he was Catholic. Outside the community of women, or feminists at least, there probably aren't many making the argument that one should vote for Hillary because she is a woman. If that sentence says to you "Vote for Obama because he's an African-American", it's because it's imprinted on your brain to read it that way.


Jeremy Young - 12/4/2007

I'm certainly open to other interpretations. Let me ask you: how do you interpret the "symbolic opportunity" line in the "Historians for Obama" statement, or Manan's "historical import" paragraph? I'm particularly interested in the first, since I think Manan can speak for himself.


Ralph E. Luker - 12/4/2007

Jeremy, I keep reading -- in your comment here and in comments on your piece on the mainpage -- that either the Historians for Obama or Manan have written that one should vote for Obama because of his race. Frankly, Jeremy, I think you read that into what the Historians or Manan wrote *because* the meme is in your head. It isn't in the text.


Jeremy Young - 12/4/2007

you got to your last paragraph, which I find an extraordinary statement. You make the case in this paragraph much more directly than do the "Historians for Obama" that we should vote for Obama because he is a black man. Does that mean that John Edwards is disqualified from the Presidency because he happens to be both white and male, or that Obama would make a better leader of the free world because of the color of his skin? I expect this line of argument from Afrocentrists like Francis L. Holland, but not from a historian.

Again, I'm undecided as to who I support for 2008, and I may in fact vote for Obama. But your argument here is, to my mind, a terrible reason for supporting him. As Thurgood Marshall said of Clarence Thomas, "You can have the wrong black man too."


Manan Ahmed - 12/3/2007

Again, I don't think I argued for the signing statement from Historians for Obama to make any such case. I am really saying that those historians who have indeed signed that statement can show their support in means greater than a signature (and a vote, of course) by dealing with rumors authoritatively, and publicly.

It is obvious that journalists are incapable of such a task.


Ralph E. Luker - 12/3/2007

Thanks for correcting me on the first point. On the second, I really think it's a problem when you take up a scurrilous rumor and treat it with the contempt it deserves, because that is *still* treating and giving further currency to it. I don't have an answer for how to deal with it. Maybe scorn is the only answer. Still, I think it would have been a mistake for Historians for Obama to make its case beginning from the claim, accurate or no, that Islam has been a part of American identity since 1619. To *start* there and, in some ways, even to go there plays right into the hand of the scandal-mongering and wrong-headed.


Manan Ahmed - 12/3/2007

I didn't ask the Obama campaign - or Obama - to educate. I asked the historians who have signed on to Obama to do so.

Whether, I am the one propagating stereotypes or the internet rumors, I leave for you to decide.


Ralph E. Luker - 12/3/2007

Manan, Your post raises important questions about the educating function of political campaigns. Obama has, of course, been a university professor and has much of the educator's instincts, I think. But if those instincts are too sharply to the fore, I'm afraid that they are alienating to an electorate. Whatever else might happen, I hope an Obama campaign doesn't reproduce the effect of the 1972 McGovern campaign. That was the last time a major party nominated a professor for President. There's a lot of learning that needs to take place, but it has to be fairly subtle or it will produce negative results. Actually, I wonder if a post like yours doesn't actually play into the very stereotyping of the other that you want to identify and render powerless.