By Heather Elawawadh

Why, when most people think of terrorists, do they assume Ahmed, Mohammed, and Nader and not Aaron, Michael, or Nathan? Not every terrorist is of Arab descent or even a Muslim, but to many people in America, if you have a foreign sounding name that could be Middle Eastern, you are automatically thought of as being a “potential terrorist.” Too many Americans continue to perceive Arabs and/or Muslims as terrorists, therefore causing severe injustice to the entire group.

Balayla Ahmad, a student at University of Bridgeport made national news last year when she reported being sexually assaulted by another student. The harassment had been going on for years, but when reported she didn’t get the response she was expecting. Instead of the student being reprimanded for his assault, Ahmad was turned into the FBI on suspicion of terrorism for being an American Muslim woman. In 2009, she was asked by a security guard if she had gone through proper procedures of reporting the sexual harassment, and then was told that there were allegations of her being a terrorist; the student she reported on for sexual assault had spread rumors about her being a terrorist. The place of privilege from which he spoke, as a straight white male in America, undoubtedly affected the college’s acceptance of his accusations; when Balayla tried to tell her side of the story, not only was she silenced as a survivor of sexual assault, but she was also silenced as a Muslim. Ahmad claims the college is being racist; the college “profoundly disagrees with the erroneous and misleading allegations that have been made.”

Racism comes in all forms, it doesn’t matter if it is the way you look, the way you dress, the way you speak, or even if it is subtly written into a seemingly innocent pep-talk.

Saad Allami who lives in Canada, has also been labeled a terrorist, all because of a harmless text message. Text messaging seems to be the number one go-to for communication; especially in the work force when everything seems to be so hectic. Allami was accused of being a terrorist by police because a text message of “blow away your competition” to his colleague was misinterpreted; he was only giving his co-worker a boost of confidence. The same statement has been or will be used by everyone at some point. How is it that when this man wrote it in a harmless text he was labeled as a terrorist? While he has not yet been formally charged as a terrorist, on his permanent record he is a suspected terrorist and has since been fired and also because of it, he can no longer get a job.

Unlike the two people above, this man’s story actually has a happy ending, although it undoubtedly difficult for him to get to where he is today. Farouk Ali-Haimoud, who lives in Detroit Michigan, has had to travel a very hard road to get his name cleared of allegations of being a terrorist. After September 11, 2001, Ali-Haimoud was accused of being a terrorist and was jailed for 15 months in Wayne County Jail. Not only was he left in jail and accused for actions he never committed, but he was also assigned to isolation and strip searched often.  He was discriminated against ad utterly humiliated. He was subjected to countless federal court dates, and was misnamed. Fox news kept his picture up on the news when they spoke of terrorists, but erroneously named him Youssef Hmimssa. Not only did they have the wrong man, they also had the wrong name. His family was basically ruined after the false accusations. Ali-Haimoud fought rigorously for his freedom in the face of accusations of commiting “the worst crimes on the planet” and a potential life sentence. At the end of 2011, he was finally granted American citizenship. There is no doubt that Ali-Haimoud’s experiences with blatant injustice have everything to do with his religious affiliation. Instances like this represent a major failure of the American system and highlight the ways that cultural bias against Islam and Muslims embedded in the media has directly caused a great deal of discrimination and inequality.

One subtle way that news reports influence the way people perceive Islam and Muslims is by the language it uses to describe crimes. For any affiliation, religious or otherwise, other than a Muslim one, a person who commits an act of violence is merely a criminal, but someone who self-identifies as a Muslim commits the very same act, news media is quick to label the person a “terrorist.”

This inconsistent nomenclature embeds into the minds of the masses that Muslims are terrorists, thereby enabling and encouraging a great amount of injustice for those perceived to be Muslims across America. As consumers of news media, we must become increasingly aware of this bias in the hopes of diminishing and eventually stopping the injustice that has affected people like Balayla, Saad and Farouk.

U.S. counterterrorism policy is a sore that the Obama administration has allowed to continue to fester. While claiming to be a beacon of freedom and justice, the US continues to hypocritically disregard our constitutional underpinnings and international human rights law.

Legislation has codified the indefinite detention of suspects including those that are U.S. citizens. Furthermore, many innocent people have been severely tortured and detained indefinitely despite the fact that the U.S. government does not have enough evidence to charge and legitimately try them. They are sent to rot indefinitely in Guantanamo Bay. Shaker Aamer is one such detainee.

Shaker Aamer loved to help people. He moved from the UK to Afghanistan to teach Arabic-speaking ex-patriots in Kabul and dig wells with an Islamic charity. “It was his dedication to the welfare of others that led to his detention in Guantanamo.” The aid worker went into hiding after the American invasion of Afghanistan, fearing that he would be captured for bounty as an Arab man.

He could not have imagined the torture that the U.S. government had in store for him at Bagram and Guantanamo. He was exposed to such harsh temperatures that his feet became frostbitten. The government used light and sounds to sleep deprive detainees to psychologically break their will in preparation for interrogation. He was beaten with a special technique called “walling” where his head was bashed so hard into the wall that it would bounce. They also used hog-tying and “strappado” which is mean to dislocate the detainee’s shoulder in an excruciating way. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld institutionally sanctioned these and other torture techniques, under the watch of Maj. General Geoffrey Miller. The extreme interrogation techniques were so odious to international human rights standards, that detainees were intentionally hidden from the International Committee of the Red Cross.

He was moved to Guantanamo Bay. There, he was “subjected to beatings, sexual humiliation, sleep deprivation, temperature extremes…kept for several years in solitary confinement.” He says that he was beaten for hours and asphyxiated during an interrogation on the same night in which three other detainees were killed. During this incident, his airway was cut off and a mask put on his face to pervert him from crying out. This same technique appears to have been used on the prisoners that died that night. Guantanamo officials claim those deaths were suicides though testimonials from other detainees say otherwise.

He has been held without charge in Guantanamo for 11 years. Aamer says, “one of the most difficult aspects of my detention has been the uncertainty of it all….” Aamer was cleared for release in 2007 under the Bush administration and assured he would be released “soon”. On his first day in office, President Obama issued an Executive Order to close Guantanamo; there is little evidence that this will occur anytime soon. The Guantanamo Review Taskforce, which included key officials of intelligence agencies and governmental departments, cleared him yet again in 2012. This illustrates that he is not a threat to the United States. Despite these glimmers of hope, Aamer’s prospects of freedom remain bleak.

As a result, he and other prisoners have turned to hunger striking as a means of peaceful protest of their treatment as the hands of the US government. Though the main demand was that detainees be charged or released to their countries, the detainees asked that more articles of the Geneva Convention be observed. Even these methods are harshly suppressed through force feedings. According to Aamer, US authorities commanded that the tubes be inserted and pulled out twice a day, and that large amounts of liquid formula be pumped into their stomachs, causing nausea, vomiting and bloating. A tube the size of a finger was being inserted through their noses twice a day to make it more painful for them to protest against their maltreatment.

Aamer was part of a Prisoners’ Council which negotiated to secure better rights for the prisoners. He is widely known as a “natural leader”. His advocacy efforts led to higher caloric allocations for detainees, more respectful guard-detainee interactions, and dimmer lighting for when detainees slept. He has been subjected to prolonged isolation and frequent maltreatment simply for daring to peacefully resist his unjust indefinite detention.

According to Reprieve’s Caroline Lucas, “the defamation od Shaker Aamer is evidence of the immense power of the security forces to say whatever they want about an accused man, to devastating effect. The organization’s Director Clive Stafford sums it um well: “Surely after he has spent 11 years in that terrible prison without charges or trial, cleared for release for six years, he should be allowed home to London to meet his youngest child Faris for the first time.”  The UK agrees to repatriate him and has called for Shaker Aamer’s release numerous times.  However, he and 89 other detainees who were cleared for release continue to rot in Guantanamo.

The government’s hesitation to release may reflect a concern that if release, Aamer could provide evidence against them in criminal investigations, especially regarding the three detainees that died on June 9, 2006. They wanted him to be released to Saudi Arabia where he would not be able to speak openly about his experiences at the hands of the United States. Both the American and British governments don’t want to deal with what he knows and his desire to widely talk about the odious injustices he suffered at our hands.

Indefinite detention violates the United Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which the US helped author. Former President Jimmy Carter decries these policies as antithetical to our 1948 commitment that “power would no longer serve as a cover to oppress or injure people.” Yet, our government is violation at least 10 of the 30 articles of the UDHR, including prohibitions on arbitrary detention, torture, and cruel, or inhuman punishment.” Our counterterrorism policy is used as propaganda material for terrorist organization. Other despotic governments cite our actions to justify their despotic behavior. We lose moral high ground when criticizing despots like Assad because we engage in the same illegal torture he does. Carter argues that our violations of international human rights “abets our enemies and alienates our friends.”

The ACLU agues that “imprisoning people indefinitely without charge or trial is illegal, un-American and is an impediment to achieving justice.” A autopsy report by Army medical examiners conclude that dozens of detainees in US custody were deemed homicides due to torture and maltreatment. Our own policies have become a rallying cry for terrorist recruitment and is thus undermines national security.

As his first executive order as President, Obama aimed to “promptly to close the detention facility at Guantanamo consistent with the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States and interests of justice.” He said aimed to restore the standards of due process and our core constitutional values that “have made this country great, even in the midst of war; even when dealing with terrorism.” Failing to close this abhorrent detention center is one of the great shortcomings of this administration. At this point, Shaker’s detention is unexplained and unjustifiable. An innocent father of four who acts as an activist for his fellow detainees continues to be held without charge, and left to slowly die of his various physical ailments with little to no medical treatment. Shaker says ”here, they destroy people mentally and physically without leaving marks.”

To fulfill the promise he made as his first act in office, President Obama see to it that Guantanamo detainees are either charged or returned to their countries. It is not too late to restore due process, return to our core constitutional values, even when dealing with terrorism. In the case of Shaker Aamer, we must recognize that we have done this man a great injustice. His detention is a blemish on our collective conscience. This can only be rectified by his unconditional release.

By William von Schrader

Since January, American news outlets have been flooded with stories about France’s two month campaign to oust a group of Islamic terrorists that had recently gained total control over the northern region of Mali.  Reports of ghastly violations of human rights coming from these areas under rebel control, along with France’s claim to be fighting Al-Qaeda-linked extremists, may lead many of us to conclude that this is a rather black and white conflict.  But a closer look into the ongoing conflict in Mali reveals a much more complex situation, which muddies the black and white rhetoric.

Though this conflict only recently gained popularity in mainstream news outlets, its origins stretch back nearly 50 years.  Following the collapse of French colonialism in northern Africa, many new states were formed.  However, these new states—drawn up on maps by the former colonial powers—hardly respected ethnic boundaries in the region, leaving the Tuareg people split between Algeria, Libya, Mali, and Niger.  The lack of national autonomy, along with a series of atrocities committed against them, led the Tuaregs to rebel.  Fighting for a homeland rich with natural resources, Azawad, the Tuaregs soon came to be considered the number one security threat to the young countries they had been split amongst – “The fact that Tuaregs are one of the world’s poorest and most isolated people living atop some of the world’s richest resources only fuels the fear…”

It was in response to the Tuareg uprising, coupled with the fear of a military coup, that former President Amadou Toumani Toure (ATT, Malian President from 2002 to 2012) began to prop up local militias in return for their support against the Tuaregs.   During this time, reports suggest that ATT diverted Western aid meant to fight Al-Qaeda to these militias, also allegedly allowing them to traffic drugs and ransom Western hostages.  Even after many of these groups became officially recognized by Al-Qaeda, ATT continued to provide a safe haven and financial support for these groups.   According to residents of Azawad, “Mali facilitated al-Qaeda, providing them complete freedom of movement among our families because they believed the presence of this group would impact the Tuareg struggle against the governing regime…”  Before long, these militias had become a part of everyday life in Mali, parading fully armed in front of police and military headquarters.

Following the fall of the Gaddafi regime in Libya, the French saw an opportunity to open up Mali’s vast wealth of natural resources to Western markets.  Reports suggest that, upon organizing and arming Tuareg separatists in Libya, the French directed these fighters to capture Azawad and establish a new Tuareg state friendly to the West.  According to Boubacar Boris Diop, a Senegalese intellectual, “These strategists knew very well that this would lead to the collapse of the Malian government and the division of its territory. But this did not make them hesitate for a second.”  The Tuareg movement swept across Northern Mali, swiftly capturing town after town from the poorly-equipped Malian military.

The Malian soldiers, finally fed up with their inability to slow the Tuareg advance, staged a coup and overthrew ATT.  These events provoke the militias funded by ATT to fight for their very existence (their main political and financial backer having been deposed), eventually retaking all the land lost to the Tuaregs.  Without ATT to answer to, the militias claimed the territory for themselves, pushing ever closer to Bamako, the nation’s capital.  Following the fall of Kona, the French declared they could no longer sit by and watch the North African nation become overrun by Al-Qaeda linked rebels.  In January, 4,000 French soldiers landed in Bamako to support the new government’s military in the fight for survival. But, as Boubacar Boris Diop put it, “France clearly occupies the role of a pyromaniac firefighter. Everything suggests that the French will defeat the jihadists, but this victory will cost the Malians their government and their honor.” Essentially, from Diop’s perspective, France has supposedly incited a regional conflict in hopes of securing vast amounts of natural resources, showing little concern for the stability of the region. He points to France’s refusal to intervene in a conflict in the Central African Republic, another former French colony (lacking the vast natural resources of Mali), as evidence of France’s true intentions.

But will this conflict only cost Malians their government and honor?  Will Mali be the only state in the region affected by this ongoing conflict?

Though Ansar Dine and the other Islamic militias initially showed few signs of serious resistance, in recent weeks they have returned with a vengeance, conducting several large scale assaults on Gao with both guerrilla soldiers and suicide bombers – the latter being a first in Malian history.  As these rebels take up positions in remote mountainous posts near Mali’s porous borders, where a protracted resistance seems likely, a situation resembling that of Afghanistan seems to become more and more a reality.  Already, France has extended what was supposed to be a quick intervention twice, recently announcing that its forces would remain in Mali until April.

The prolonged presence of Western forces, along with the degree of destruction being dealt to Mali’s infrastructure, has led many to believe that this conflict may lead to greater insecurity and destabilization throughout the region, igniting a “war of shadows.”  According to Jonathan Marcus, a BBC diplomatic correspondent, the type of war that would be needed to defeat these rebels would be similar to that which the US has waged in Iraq and Afghanistan – a war that France alone does not have the means to maintain. One should also remember that, even with the technological capability to wage such a war, the United States has hardly been victorious in the wars it has fought that resemble this conflict.

Despite France’s insistence that this will still be a “swift” operation, all signs seem to suggest that the annihilation of Ansar Dine and other related militias is far from over.  With ever increasing levels of destruction and human loss, the future will most likely witness an escalation in the ferocity with which this conflict is fought, serving to fuel further instability throughout the region.  And though the claim by France to be fighting Al-Qaeda linked rebels is true, that does not make the distinction between the good and bad in this conflict an easy one to make.

I started watching Homeland, knowing that the high-energy political thriller had won critical acclaim and several Emmys last month. I got hooked right away – pulled in by the fast-paced story, compelling performances, and the unrelenting tension between the “good guys” and the “bad guys” – as they are so aptly called in the show. As a viewer, I could never put my finger on what was coming next, or how the story would shift.

However, as an American Muslim and keen observer of international politics, I could not ignore the troubling and reoccurring factual errors about Islam, Muslims, and the Middle East. These manifest in the dialogue and plot, making it difficult to discuss the show without addressing its problematic narrative which required suspension of disbelief about the Muslim community.

Showtime’s runaway hit Homeland focuses on Nicholas Brody and Carrie Mathison, played by Damian Lewis and Claire Danes respectively. Brody is a sergeant in the US Marine Corps – recently returned to his wife and two children in suburban Virginia – who had been stationed in Iraq. During a mission, he was captured by Al-Qaeda and held in an underground torture chamber for eight years. Carrie, a CIA agent who has also worked in Iraq, has received intelligence from an Al-Qaeda member after months of interrogation that an American who has recently returned to the US from Iraq had been “turned.” Carrie suspects Brody is now actively planning a terrorist attack on American soil while working with the head of Al-Qaeda, a Bin Laden-esque figure named Abu Nazir.

Homeland is based on the Israeli TV series Hatufim (Prisoners of War) which was created by Israeli screenwriter, director, and producer Gideon Raff. The series is about a group of Israeli soldiers who are captured as POWs in Lebanon in 2008 and the difficulties they face trying to readjust to civilian life. It is not surprising that the series would be easily adaptable for U.S. audiences as Israel and the U.S. share a similar stance when it comes to Middle Eastern affairs.

In another instance, Beirut is shown as a dusty, medieval bazaar, instead of the bustling metropolitan city it is, where armed militias in jeeps terrorize dilapidated neighborhoods and Hezbollah commanders leave their top-secret battle plans at the kitchen desk. Iraq is shown as a demonic hell-hole where Americans are tortured and killed. Needless to say, any American watching the show will not be inclined to think well of Muslims, much less visit a Middle Eastern country. This type of scene is recycled time and time again in mainstream media portrayals of Muslim-majority countries.

Sure enough, the Israeli series’ influence on Homeland is indubitable. Interestingly, the scenes representing Lebanon and Iraq were shot in Israel. What was even more fascinating was that six supporting actors, who are not of Arab ethnicity, play Arabs in the show. The actor playing a Saudi prince is an Israeli American named Amir Arison. Why was a Saudi actor not hired?

Yusuf Swade, who plays Hasan Ibrahim, Abu Nazir’s bomb-maker, is also Israeli. And what about Abu Nazir, a Palestinian being played by an Iranian actor named Navid Negahban? Raquim Faisel, another Saudi national in the show, is also played by an Iranian, actor Omid Abtahi. Hrach Titizian is of Armenian descent but is playing Danny Galvez, a character of Guatemalan and Lebanese origin. Zuleikha Robinson, who plays Roya Hammad, a Pakistani-British character, is of Burmese-Indian and English descent.

As I researched the characters’ backgrounds, I couldn’t help but question why Arab or Pakistani characters in Homeland are not being played by Arabs or Pakistanis? Wouldn’t it be more authentic, honest, and believable if Arab voices were heard in a show about Arabs? Is it that Arab actors refused to be part of Homeland or that the people behind Homeland purposely chose to not have Arab actors portray significant characters in the show? This could be comparable to actors who are not black playing African Americans on television, which is considered deeply offensive to the African American community today. Or could it be that the Arab American narrative is considered un-American and unpatriotic in popular culture, so much so that we require non-Arabs to tell us what Arabs’ lives are like?

This was not the only problem I have as a fan of Homeland; I also have trouble accepting Carrie and Brody as entirely credible characters.

I enjoy watching them play off of each other as Homeland’s crux is the dynamic between Carrie and Brody. The writers intelligently construct the entire show around a single relationship; to simply call it complicated would be an injustice to the show itself. Lewis plays Brody with a delicious duality, lying without a second thought to Carrie, his wife, his children, and even to himself. He keeps everyone under the dark about where his loyalty truly lies and yet maintains a respectable appearance, wearing a military uniform ironed to perfection. He is vulnerable yet dangerous, a loving father yet a terrible husband, claims to love his country yet actively assists Abu Nazir (who reportedly hates America) undergoes severe emotional and physical trauma, yet does not think twice about inflicting said trauma on others when necessary.

Furthermore, Carrie champions American nationalism with a self-righteousness that is frankly nauseating. She has no problem installing video and audio surveillance in Brody’s home to gather evidence against him, but does not forgive him when he lies to her about his identity.  Her strongest conviction is that she, and only she, must defend America from all threats, internal and external, the foremost threat being Abu Nazir, whose name Claire Danes mispronounces with relish. Keep in mind that this character is a CIA agent, fluent in the Arabic language. As someone who has studied Arabic, it was annoying to hear Carrie speak as if she did not know the pronunciation of Arabic names. Surely, could the show afford an accent coach?

As we find out over the course of the first season, Carrie is volatile and unpredictable. Even after she finds out that Brody has been turned into a “terrorist”, (as he decides to change foreign policy from the inside out through becoming a congressman than through Abu Nazir-like violent revolution) she does not stop loving him. This was a very difficult pill for me to swallow, as I would expect a CIA agent to be a bit more logical. Even after she undergoes self-imposed Electro Convulsive Therapy after an emotional breakdown brought on by Brody’s violent rejection to her “spying” on him based on suspicion that he is a terrorist, she still goes back to working for the CIA. Even after suffering humiliation by her boss, David Estes, she risks her life to go to Beirut to investigate a link between the Al-Qaeda and Hezbollah, which might lead to Abu Nazir.

Because according to the show, there is no other choice to save America; there is no one more skilled or more intuitive or even more emotionally stable in the entire Central Intelligence Agency than Carrie Mathison. As a person who is a critical thinker, this is truly difficult to buy.

One cannot help but question whether Carrie is a sadomasochist, who revels in the pain she actively puts herself through in the name of work because of her disorder or whether this is how the creators of Homeland believe CIA agents would be. Even more worrying, however, is the thought that this is how said creators believe CIA agents should be. And if that is truly their belief, are they selling us near-lies in the name of entertainment?

I agree that the premise is fascinating, designed to keep the audience on its toes, with deeply flawed and still likeable characters, uncomfortably involved in each other’s lives. However, as I quickly realized, and as you might have guessed by now, the show is engineered to appeal to a certain demographic, one which does not require much critical thinking or deep understanding of international affairs, instead requiring the audience to stomach giant leaps in implausibility.

For example, Carrie is not alone in the mispronunciation camp; often, Brody mispronounces the Arabic prayers which he learned from Abu Nazir. Surely Abu Nazir knows the correct way to pray in Arabic, considering he has been Muslim much longer than Brody! In one scene, Brody offers salaah with shoes on, which is a huge blooper. It would only take a quick Google search to confirm that Muslims must not wear shoes while praying. This is not to mention that Isa (pronounced Ee-saa), the Arabic name for Jesus is pronounced Ah-i-sa, repeatedly. In the first episode of the second season, Brody’s wife Jessica throws his copy of the English translation of the Quran on the floor, after finding out that Brody has converted to Islam. Aside from the fact that I flinched instinctively at this disrespect, albeit coming from a fictional character, I was taken aback by what Jessica says at this moment and by her sheer disgust at Brody’s new identity.

“This can’t happen. You have a wife, two kids. You’re in the running to become congressman. This can’t happen, you get that right?”

Yes, because being Muslim and an American politician are incongruous, right? You can’t possibly be human or sane if you’ve converted to Islam. I could only wonder what the writers were trying to say in this scene.

Jessica goes on to argue that Brody being Muslim would jeopardize their daughter Dana’s relationship with her boyfriend because, in her view, Dana would be stoned to death for pre-marital sex if she was Muslim. And let’s not get started on how it would affect the kids’ future if anyone found out their father was a Muslim. Jessica is more terrified at Brody’s new-found faith, than hurt that he has lied to her countless times.

This is what truly makes me nervous about Homeland’s premise, not the mispronunciations or the easily avoidable inaccuracies, but that it actively perpetuates Islamophobia. Carrie and Brody’s relationship is built on fear and distrust; both of them represent the “us vs. them” attitude.

Every Muslim character in the show is suspicious at best, a terrorist at worst. None of the Muslims, according to Homeland, can be trusted to run their households, much less run for political office. This propagates further misunderstanding and fear of Muslims in the minds of the audience. Instead of dispelling stereotypes, Homeland promotes them, actively selling Islamophobia in the name of thrill and action.

As a fan of the show, I feel compelled to discuss these inaccuracies and problems. As an American, I feel it both misrepresents Muslims in America and abroad and promotes Islamophobia to audiences worldwide. I hope that in the future, Homeland’s writers and directors prove to be less concerned with gimmicks than with fact. A nuanced, balanced, and fair representation of Muslims would only add credibility to the show and increase viewership. Who knows, maybe more Muslims like me would even like to watch it without having to criticize every episode.

Recent counterterrorism efforts conducted by the FBI leave many wondering about the state of our nation’s security. Within the past year, FBI officials have produced a new method for stopping terrorist attacks: picking out the “terrorists” themselves.

A string of operations which provokes young individuals to commit criminal and premeditated terrorist attacks on innocent people. By giving them the tools they need on a silver platter, along with words of encouragement, the FBI is creating dangerous situations where they can intervene and then stop an event from happening; a bit redundant right?

Two federal cases in particular have made major headlines; a 19 year old Adel Daoud, and 21 year old Quazi Ahsan Nafis were arrested after undercover FBI agents persuaded them to commit crimes and giving them the means to do so.

Daoud and Nafis were led to hold extremist views, where they would confide to people they believed had ties with al Qaeda or other terrorist groups (in these cases, FBI informants), with ideas they had on taking “action” against America. In an attempt to “diffuse” these plans, FBI agents, after months of building a relationship with the to-be “terrorists,” gave Daoud and Nafis the resources and moral support to carry out terrorist attacks.

Even more interesting is how these setups are presented in the mainstream media, barely expressed as sting operations and most definitely not as intended captures under false pretenses.  The undercover FBI officials are painted as heroes who foiled yet another terrorist plot thus securing the safety of our nation.

As much as we all love a superhero story, reality tells us otherwise.

What you don’t hear about is how the FBI facilitates these terrorist actions, compelling young and impressionable individuals into committing violent crimes. So who are the FBI setting the sights on for what they consider to be promising young terrorists?

Unsurprisingly, the targets are young men of Middle Eastern and South Asian descent, taking racial profiling to a new level.

As they manufacture evidence against presumably innocent individuals, there is an obvious problem with the credibility of our law enforcement. The “terrorist enemy” is being profiled based on tired stereotypes that stem from ignorance, fear, and Islamophobia.

It certainly doesn’t help that the informants that are providing the police with information are promised a hefty reward in order for these operations to take place and creating a framework for those police officials to base their case around.

So what’s really behind these sting operations, seize and capture efforts, top secret investigations, or entrapment-like incarcerations? From what is portrayed in the media, police officials are using “powerful law enforcement tools” against the teens in order to prevent terrorist and terror organizations from infiltratingAmerica.

In most cases, law enforcement officials set up sting operations with the notion that there was some existing criminal activity. They follow potential suspects knowing that they are participating in illicit situations and allowing them to continue in order to capture them on a bigger bust.

But what about Daoud and Nafis who were in no way involved in previous attempts of terrorist action, aside for the implied confessions once the undercover agents already got into their minds and cosigned on their radical ideas.

It seems the FBI has its own spin on “innocent until proven guilty.” Was the FBI only preventing the probable? I think not.

Adel Daoud was a kid straight out of high school, identified as “the best kid” by his parents, but was troubled and initially misguided. How Daoud was actually captured and what information was being tracked on his behalf is not being released to the public; prosecutors state this would be a direct violation of the Classified Information Procedures Act and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, both designed to fight terror plots after the 2001 September 11 attacks.

Without this information, the public cannot be certain about everything that transpired, but we do know that there was a heavy influence from the FBI, developing an idea from a person, young and naïve, and turning it into a real lived terrorist exploitation.

Nafis, a Bangladeshi native, and Daoud, an American Muslim citizen, were picture perfect targets and easily manipulated. After they were given fake bombs and urging words, reports reflected a somewhat different perspective. In one report , they described the actions that took place when the plot was unraveling, stating that Nafis unpacked “his” bag full of explosives to carry out “his” plan.

But were these explosives really in fact his?

National security is put in place to prevent dangerous events from happening, but police credibility comes into question when they create the situation in the first place. How are they creating a safe environment for the American people when they provide radical minded individuals with the tools they need to execute a dangerous plot?

You can parallel this to many situations: giving drugs to people with serious addiction; feeding the delusions of mentally ill people; surrounding a recovering sex offender with provocative situations.

The idea is to help people that need help, thus getting to the root of extremist or violent influence that may find its way to young people who are naïve, people like Daoud and Nafis. If ideas of violence, hate, and terrorism were implanted in their young minds how can we decipher if they were inherent?

Instead of getting to the root of the problem and working to stifle actual threats, young lives are now destroyed and these kids will potentially face the rest of their lives in prison based on incitements.

Aside from the staunchly unconstitutional counterterrorism methods, blatant racist profiling, and endangering American Muslim citizens by inciting Islamophobia, these manufactured attacks have more than one victim: the safety and security of ALL American citizens.

Actual threats of terrorism and violence become even more alarming when the FBI loses one of its valuable resources: a cooperative American Muslim community that has – until recent FBI spying and unjust law enforcement policies – have contributed their time and effort to assisting with thwarting potential dangers and influences.

The American Muslim community, feeling unfairly targeted now has legitimate reason to distrust FBI and law enforcement officials as well as one another. Communities, schools, and places of worship are no longer safe havens for communities and their families, but have become breeding grounds for fear, suspicion and mistrust.

Our civil liberties cannot continue to be compromised. Acts such as the Patriot Act and NDAA were put in place to provide loopholes in our constitution, to take away certain rights so they have the ability to target individuals that “might” cause harm. The constitution was put in place to protect our citizens, U.S . citizens like the young Daoud, who will now be imprisoned based on a faulty system.

It comes now to question, who will be the next targeted American Muslim that will take the bait and fall victim to plots executed by our own national security forces?

For years now it is a common household subject that there is a “War on Terror” we are fighting. To get to the root of the problem is one thing, but there are issues with law enforcement creating perversions of the true dangers that face our society. This fabricated product of our own security services poses a threat to American Muslims, and as the media delivers honored depictions of sting operations, there will be no change in how potential threats are targeted.

In brightest day, in blackest night,
No evil shall escape my sight
Let those who worship evil’s might,
Beware my power, Green Lantern’s light!!!

- Green Lantern Oath

The typical Hollywood movie with Arab or Muslim characters usually portrays them as the “bad guys.” In Iron Man (2008), the bad Arab/Muslim men were hiding in caves and forcing their hostage Tony Stark to manufacture a new weapon. Terrorists ran amok in FOX’s 24 where American super Counter Terroirst agent Jack Bauer, played heroically by Kiefer Sutherland, hunted them down and foiled their evil plots. The list goes on- True Lies, Under Siege, Executive Decision, Taken, Vantage Point, The Kingdom, HBO’s Homeland, and even comedies like Adam Sandler’s You Don’t Mess with the Zohan – are all guilty of depicting Arabs and Muslims as violent, misogynistic, uncivilized, and hateful of the West.

Recycled negative stereotypes like these get old real fast. The heroes in these films and television shows are usually always white, heroic government agents or renegade ex-cops who sacrifice their lives for their country. The bad guys are generally always ignorant men from Muslim countries who shout incomprehensible threats and profanities in a foreign language, while shouting “Allahu Akbar” (God is Great), and killing people. This is what sells, and why Hollywood continues to promote movies about fearing the “other.” After all, it’s easier for producers recycle stereotypes than to create multi-dimensional characters that challenge the status quo of Arab and Muslim characters.

This September, we have something new and different that breaks from the tired pattern of negative Arab and Muslim stereotypes. DC Comics debuted the first Arab Green Lantern with Issue #0 in September 2012 as part of the New 52 featuring origin stories in #0 issues.

Right from the beginning, DC doesn’t hold back. On the cover, we’re immediately confronted with the image of a masked man pointing a gun at the reader, his dark skinned arm prominently displaying a green glowing tattoo in Arabic (“courage’), along with the Green Lantern ring. One has to wonder immediately whether writer Geoff Johns and artist Doug Mahnke, will cater to stereotypes of Arabs as terrorists, or rise above to create a real Arab and Muslim-American hero who fights for justice, peace and tolerance.

Within the first few frames, we see a familiar image of the September 11th attacks, but instead of showing reactions from the general public, we’re shown the shocked and horrified reaction of a Muslim family in Dearborn, Michigan, watching the tragedy on TV. Five years later, we’re introduced to Simon Baz as he’s defending his sister against a group of young men who are ripping off her hijab, and later see Simon being “routinely” checked by airport security. Representing a feeling often held by minorities, Simon is being treated as the “other” by everyone else, even though he too is American.

The real action begins when Simon is mistaken as a terrorist, after he steals a van. Without spoiling the story, it should be no surprise that Simon is caught by government agents, aka the “Feds” and undergoes an intense interrogation. What happens during the interrogation is key to how he is chosen as the next Green Lantern for our sector. Having a major superhero from a leading comic book, as being Arab and Muslim is ground breaking. It shows to all the countless kids and readers who devour comic books and comic book movies that an Arab-Muslim man can also be hero, and an Arab-Muslim man can also represent justice and fight against evil.

It will be exciting to see how the story develops with a suspected terrorist as the new Green Lantern. I hope DC will finally give us what has been a long time coming- a real Arab American hero. What are you waiting for? Get your issue now at your local comic book store!

By Matthew Barry

Recently, Fox News ran a piece with the headline “Did mental illness fuel Wisconsin massacre-or was it terrorism?” Read the headline again. You might find the unspoken implication: the conscious decision to commit terrorism, to kill and maim innocent people, has to be the act of a sane man. Not meaning to kill people but doing it anyway makes one insane. A strange conclusion, isn’t it?

This is one example of the bizarre reasoning that we use when it comes to acts of terrorism committed by non-Muslims in this country. There is a clear mental schema for what a terrorist looks like in America today (which is largely shaped by media institutions); and when someone who looks different commits an act of terrorism, it is jarring for us to deal with. Rarely has this been clearer than in the case of Michael Page, the shooter in the horrific tragedy at the Sikh temple in Wisconsin. Were Page a Muslim who spent his life associating with extremists before walking into a church or synagogue with his gun, he would have been labeled a terrorist instantly. It would be accepted without question by most that he would have had all of his mental facilities functioning. But as it is, he was a white man with Nazi connections walking into a Sikh temple, so we are treated to stories about how he was such a sweet child and must have been mentally ill.

Right-wing terrorism is just as much of a threat to this country as Islamic terror, yet most view it as a fraction of the threat, the lessons of the horrendous 1995 Oklahoma City attack apparently already forgotten. Our security services have done an admirable job when it comes to stopping Islamic terror plots in the United States since 9/11. But Islamic terrorists don’t have the market on terrorism cornered. “There is a problem when you get overly concerned with one particular threat and take your eyes off others — that is a natural tendency and it is impossible to keep focused on every possibility,” said Hagai M Siegal, a terrorism expert and professor at New York University in London.

In 13 of the 17 years since Oklahoma City, the majority of terrorist attacks in this nation have been the responsibility of right-wing, not Islamic, terrorists. Last year, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) recorded the active presence of 1,018 hate groups and 1,608 anti-government militia and patriot groups. That’s nearly a doubling of hate groups since 2000 and a staggering 755% growth rate in militia groups in the last three years alone.

Granted, most militia groups stick to spouting off words and preparing for the day the UN army comes to take their guns, but increasing numbers aren’t waiting around anymore. A plot foiled to kill judges in Alaska, four men arrested attempting to manufacture ricin in Georgia, two police officers murdered in Arkansas by so-called “sovereign citizens”: only a fraction of these people may be turning violent, but the explosive growth rate of these groups means that fraction is steadily growing larger every year.

Consider the “hatecore” music that Page was such a fan of. The hate music scene in America was hardly operating in the shadows, having become a multimillion dollar industry with over one hundred active bands spewing a variety of angry and fascist sentiments on internet radio stations and music festivals across the country. “The importance of music in growing the worldwide skinhead movement cannot be overstated,” concluded the SPLC, which suspects that many hate groups are nearly entirely funded by their record labels.

Isn’t it interesting that this has barely drawn comment from anybody outside of the SPLC? If there was a thriving Muslim hate metal scene in America financing Muslim extremist groups that sold albums full of lyrics about the joy of killing infidels, wouldn’t it be getting a fair amount of attention? Yet the existence of the hatecore is greeted by America with a collective shrug, at best.

To the credit of the national security apparatus, the more general threat did not go entirely unnoticed. The FBI worried about the threat from disgruntled right-wingers for years, culminating in a joint effort between the FBI and Department of Homeland Security in 2009 that warned “white supremacist lone wolves pose the most significant domestic terrorist threat because of their low profile and autonomy.” The report called attention to the possible effect that the election of an African-American president and the economic downturn would have on extremists already saturated with racism and xenophobia. Particular mention was made of the threat of disillusioned veterans with lethal skills returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.

The report, meant to be for internal use only, was leaked to the media and immediately lambasted as a “hit job” by the Obama administration that sought to tarnish the conservative movement. Public outcry led to the report being pulled from the DHS website, although it was never formally rescinded, a move that would have required it being found to be factually inaccurate. As it turned out, the report was prepared not by a bleeding-heart liberal but by Daryl Johnson, a registered Republican and Mormon who notes that he was at a Boy Scout fundraiser when he first heard that his report had been leaked. The uproar had barely died down when an abortion doctor and security guard at the National Holocaust Museum were killed by the exact sort of extremists that the report warned about.

That was not enough to vindicate Johnson. He resigned from the agency a year later after his unit was gutted and reduced to a single analyst to monitor all non-Islamic domestic terror threats to the country. This means that one man or woman was singlehandedly supposed to keep tabs on militias, patriot groups, neo-Nazis, skinheads, anarchists, eco-terrorists and animal rights extremists. Johnson bitterly recounted that since he left the agency, there has not been a single report put out by the DHS on domestic terror of a non-Islamic variety.

A symbol of the denial of the problem existing in some official circles, Representative Peter King, chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, has found plenty of time to hold hearings about radicalization of American Muslims, yet apparently had no room in his schedule to take a look at the threat of non-Muslim extremists. It’s easy to figure out why, because he once stated that “There is no equivalency of threat between al Qaeda and neo-Nazis, environmental extremists or other isolated madmen.” Perhaps he’s never heard about Oklahoma City or Norway, where such “isolated madmen” killed 168 and 77, respectively, though they would seem to be incidents that the chairman of a committee devoted to homeland security should be aware of.

Why might Rep. King, and other like him, think there is no equivalency in the threat? Though it is rather difficult to determine what exactly goes on in Rep. King’s head, it likely has to do with weapons of mass destruction. The collective nightmare of Americans since September 11 is al-Qaeda succeeding in detonating a nuclear weapon in an American city. Doesn’t the threat of that outweigh that posed by some whack jobs killing police officers and building fertilizer bombs?

The facts, however, tell a different story. There have been five separate incidences of Americans who have no connection to Islam trying to acquire or using nuclear, chemical, or biological attacks since September 11: one was by an anarchist, one by militia members, two by white supremacists, and one where the motive is still unclear (the case of Bruce Ivins, perpetrator of the anthrax mail attacks). With the exception of the anthrax attacks, where the culprit was entirely unknown (but often assumed to be Muslim) none received any serious media coverage. Neo-Nazi James Cummings, for example, was well on his way to constructing a radiological “dirty bomb” that he planned to release in Washington D.C, yet he never received more than a fraction of the attention given to incompetent and amateurish plot of Jose Padilla, a Muslim. Cummings had actually acquired radioactive material, a step which Padilla never reached. As Steve Coll wrote in The New Yorker, “all of the most frightening cases—involving chemical, biological, and radiological materials—arose from right-wing extremists or anarchists. None arose from Islamist militancy.”

The New America Foundation officially concluded, “The record of the past decade suggests that if a chemical, biological or radiological attack were to take place in the United States, it is more likely that it would come not from an Islamist terrorist but from a right-wing extremist or anarchist.” Yet the DHS apparently had 25 analysts devoted to Islamic terrorism and one devoted to all other forms of domestic terrorism. Islamic terrorists may very well pose a threat equal to right-wing extremists, or even a greater one. It is difficult to argue that they are twenty-five times the threat.

That skewed ratio reveals the ultimate Orwellian truth in all of this: in the United States, all terrorists get equal attention, but some get more equal attention than others. It is impossible to know at this point whether or not Michael Page could have been stopped before he entered the temple that fateful day, but what can be said with some certainty that the longer we ignore the other half of the terrorist threat in our midst, the greater the cost will be, and that cost will come in American lives.

It’s becoming the summer of shooting sprees and hate crimes. In the past month alone, we have seen senseless violence and hatred carried out in a packed movie theatre, Sikh temple, and now a mosque – and while those communities are recovering from unspeakable tragedies, legal authorities are still struggling to label these attacks for what they truly are: acts of terrorism.

While the events that took place in the movie theatre in Colorado are still fresh on the minds of the mainstream public, this past week we were confronted with another unfortunate event.

On Sunday morning, a gunman now identified as Wade Michael Page entered a Sikh temple in Wisconsin and opened fire, taking the lives of six individuals before being gunned down by police. Less than twenty-four hours later, a mosque in Joplin, Missouri was burned to the ground in what is now being investigated as a hate crime.

While many media outlets (MSNBC, Fox News) have focused on the assailants, such as their background history, motives for carrying out the attack, associations with supremacist groups – one important matter has largely been overlooked. Officially labeling the tragic events, and let’s call these events for what they are: terrorism.

Look at it this way. If the gunmen were black or Latino, they would probably be linked to gang or drug related activity. If they were from an Arab or Muslim background, they would surely be labeled terrorists. The reality is the gunmen, in the case of the Colorado movie shooting, was a white male, an honors college student pursuing a PhD in neuroscience. The only thing this cold-blooded killer was labeled at first was a “suspect” by the local authorities.

Yet, this “suspect”, later identified as James Eagen Holmes, clearly committed an act of terror when he sprayed his automatic weapon in the movie auditorium, taking the lives of fathers, mothers, and children. This isn’t the first incident in which news media has incorrectly described terrorists, and acts of terror, as simply that. Recently, a group of five men from Cleveland were arrested in their attempts to detonate a bridge in Brecksville, Ohio. The men considered themselves anarchists and many news sites across the nation allowed these men to self-describe themselves as such – even though they were quoted as saying “our goal was to spread rioting and destruction in every major city” and “were intent on using violence to express their ideological views”. Anarchy or terrorism?

More so, what defines terrorism? The official definition from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) reads as this in their Code of Federal Regulations: “The unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.” According to this, all acts of mass violence that have been carried out in recent years on U.S. soil, ranging from Virginia Tech, Colorado movie theatre, and the recent Sikh temple shootings all fit the definition of terrorism and should be portrayed as such by the media.

It’s also important to note that Holmes was planning this attack for months. He was receiving regular deliveries of pounds of ammunition and weapons over the course of 60 days that had gone unnoticed by law enforcement authorities. Would this have been the same case if the name on the delivery address was Mohammad or Abdullah? Three years ago, in the same exact town of Aurora and just miles from Holmes’s residence, a man had sent three emails to a suspected terrorist in Pakistan before the FBI was already on his trail, tapping his phones and following him across the country. That was over a few email conversations, so why wasn’t the same amount of surveillance applied to a young man who had just purchased military-style rifles and 300 shotgun shells?

Regarding the attack at the Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin, the FBI has declared it an act of “domestic terrorism”. Why not simply call it terrorism, and more so, why wasn’t the Colorado movie shooting given the same label? Although the chief of police and FBI have called this domestic terrorism, why haven’t they labeled Page a terrorist?

For too long, the American media has glanced over men like Holmes and Page and attributed their violence to factors such as mental illness or right wing extremism. Even after declaring this weekends shootings as domestic terrorism, major media outlets continue to portray Page simply as a shooter or gunman. You don’t need a political agenda or religious affiliation to be classified as a terrorist – it comes down to the actions itself.

David Sirota is a best-selling author from Aurora, Colorado – the scene of the movie shooting. Like many others from his area, he was devastated to hear about the tragedy that unfolded his hometown. But Sirota was also quick to notice some of the “insulting media coverage” following the incident. In his excellent piece for Salon, he writes, “there is only one harrowing conclusion we can come to for certain immediately after such a heinous act: Terrorism has no specific nationality, geography, race or creed.”

Any unlawful use of force or violence against a civilian population is the definition of terrorism. It does not need to be synonymous with a certain religion or ethnic group to be defined as such, and it’s unfortunate that much of the American public has accepted a one-sided perception of what a terrorist or extremist is. As the towns of Aurora, Oak Creek, and Jospin begin to heal from a pointless act of terror, we should remember those lives that were lost. History has a trend of remembering the killers, never the victims, but the families and the towns deserve more than that.

Colorado movie shooting:

Jonathan T. Blunk, 26

Alexander J. Bolk, 18

Sgt. Jesse E. Childres, 29

Gordon W. Cowden, 51

Jessica Ghawi, 24

John Thomas Larimer, 27

Matthew R. McQuinn, 27

Micayla C. Medek, 23

Veronica Moser-Sullivan, 6

Alex M. Sullivan, 27

Alexander C. Teves, 24

Rebecca Ann Wingo, 32

Sikh temple shooting:

Satwant Singh Kaleka, 65

Paramjit Kaur, 41

Suveg Singh, 84

Prakash Singh, 39

Ranjit Singh, 49

Sita Singh, 41

Tom Krattenmaker, a member of USA Today’s Board of Contributers and a writer on religion and the public sphere recently wrote an opinion piece titled “Use ‘terrorist’ label carefully and consistently”. Krattenmaker begins his piece by highlighting an important disparity between two recent events that received a fair amount of media attention: in the first, he details Nidal Hasan’s shooting spree at Fort Hood, where 13 were killed and 30 wounded. In the second, he recalls the death of six people including a U.S. District Judge and the injury of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, among others, at the hands of Jared Loughner.

Nidal Hasan is a Palestinian Muslim, while Jared Loughner is a White, non-Muslim male. This difference, Krattenmaker claims, is the reason for the drastically different media portrayals of the two men. While Hassan was deemed a terrorist – “the mother of all damning labels in this post-9/11 age”- the incident involving Loughner was not widely portrayed as an act of terrorism. Linguistics professor George Lakoff has said, “The physical violence was not only in New York and Washington. Physical changes—violent ones—have been made to the brains of all Americans.” What begins as a seemingly genuine effort to urge readers to question word choice falls flat for a number of reasons – ambiguity, over-generalization, and falling for the very trap we are told to avoid.

After citing an excellent new research paper by Lewis & Clark Law School professor Tung Yin titled “Were Timothy McVeigh and the Unabomber the Only White Terrorists?: Race, Religion, and the Perception of Terrorism”, Krattenmaker highlights notable historically different representations of acts of terror in the pre and post 9/11 eras. Though it is thoroughly demonstrated that race and religion do indeed significantly contribute to the perception of terrorism, Krattenmaker does not heed a precise or sincere enough call to action: “As many have argued (present company included), subjecting all American Muslims to terrorism-related stereotypes and suspicions is unfair and unwise.” Krattenmaker does not state how many or on what grounds American Muslims should indeed be subject to terrorism-related stereotypes or suspicions. This ambiguity leaves room for vastly different interpretations and does not assure readers that despite the prevalence of terrorist-related media portrayals of Islam and Muslims, most present-day terrorists are not Muslim and conversely most Muslims are not terrorists.

In direct contrast, in a piece previously written by Krattenmaker featured on his personal website, he writes, “And, to state the sadly obvious, nearly all the terrorism in the nine years since [9/11] has been committed under the banner of Islam (a grossly distorted version of it, more precisely).” As Krattenmaker alludes to what he considers the “sadly obvious”, he illustrates the toll that strengthened cognitive biases that relate Islam and terrorism have, and raises the question about whether or not what we consider reality is founded in truth or social construction. By justifying the partial existence of these stereotypes and suspicions, we provide them with a place to stay – a sort of mental sustenance, underestimating the lengths at which we must go to reverse what occurs when they overstay their welcome.

While the crux of Krattenmaker’s article focuses on the need to treat representations of Muslims in the media with more fairness, he contradicts himself when he says, “Those who defend American Muslims are tempted at times to obscure the religious and terrorist angles when Muslims do perpetrate violence…” Many Muslim organizations do not necessarily wish that the religious element of acts of terror be undermined or removed from the mainstream media agenda. They do, however, call for more balance in portrayals of these acts, especially if similar acts are being committed by non-Muslims. When Krattenmaker attributes these calls to action as a desire to “protect Muslims from reprisals”, he makes it seem as though Muslims are inherently predisposed to commit acts of terror. And in wishing to “protect” Muslims, he implies their victimization.

Lastly, Krattenmaker ends his piece with a statement contradictory enough for readers to wish he had never written the piece in the first place: “If the religion dimension helps identify a suspect, and if the t-word helps law enforcement and the public understand the nature of an act of mass violence, its use is justified. If the label fits, apply it. But fairly, please.” Throughout most of Krattenmaker’s article, he makes a heartfelt attempt to condemn profiling based on religion and unbalanced media portrayals of similarly horrific acts of terror committed by Americans of different faiths. But, to say that one’s faith should help identify a suspect only encourages racial profiling and without an accurate definition of terrorism given in the article, readers are left where they began.

Krattenmaker’s approach regarding word choice begs the question of whether or not subtle nuances such as these are in fact more dangerous than outrageous and bigoted accusations that are much simpler for the masses to blatantly disregard.

The article, “Hostility Between Muslims and German Nationalists Rattles a Former Capital,” by Melissa Eddy gave a one sided view on the rally in Bonn, Germany between Muslims and German Nationalists. Eddy explained that on May 5, 2012 a right-wing group, Pro-NRW, showed praying Muslims insulting caricatures of their prophet Muhammad, which led to a violent uprising. The article portrayed Muslims as dangerous and at fault for the disturbance of peace. It also described and justified the fear and contempt the residents feel against Muslims. However, it did not explain why the praying Muslims acted so defensively or that Pro-NRW has a history of expressing Islamaphobic ideas.

Eddy wrote, “But after one of the 30 or so rightists climbed…to flash the cartoon at the Muslims…a shower of rocks and shards from smashed flower pots flew at the police in response.” She also quoted Robin Fassbender, who said the Muslims, “just exploded.” This is problematic because it only gives the reader the viewpoint of non-Muslim residents. It makes the Muslims in the situation seem unreasonably violent. Furthermore, the word “exploded” also elicits a discriminatory response from the reader since it implicitly links Muslims to bombs, terrorism and violence.

The caricature was of Prophet Muhammad by Kurt Westergaard drawn in 2005. Westergaard is a Danish cartoonist who drew Muhammad wearing turban that resembles a bomb. It is disrespectful and insulting to the Muslim community to have any drawings of their prophet, nonetheless with him wearing bomb. It is an image that has sparked a lot of controversy in the past because it is used with ignorance and hatred. The illustration has also had a history of causing anger and upheaval from Muslims all over the world. Muhammad holds a sacred place in Islamic belief and is revered by Muslims. It is understandable for Muslims to react this way. Similarly, devout Christians who love and respect Jesus Christ have reacted similarly when their prophet was portrayed sacrilegiously.

The drawing also perpetuates the stereotype that Muslims are terrorists. In fact, less than 1% of terrorist attacks are perpetrated by Muslims. The cartoon is an incorrect depiction of what Islam stands for and encourages Islamophobia and hate. Knowing the controversial and sensitive nature of the image, the Pro-NRW members still decided to show it when they completely understood the response it would evoke. Eddy failed to mention Pro-NRW member’s motives and explain the full context of the situation.

The right-wing group also showed the controversial image during prayer at King Fahad Academy, which has 500 students and a Mosque that is large enough for 700 worshipers. It is also a school that “combines education in Arabic and Islam with a concerted effort to build bridges with German society by increasing understanding of Arab and Islamic culture.” Pro-NRW members came during prayer at the school, making the situation more provocative and emotional for the Muslims involved.

Eddy also made contrasts between Bonn before and after Muslims began to move in the city. She said, “Today Bonn, once tranquil, is a volatile cocktail of social tensions between its Muslim newcomers…and a far-right nationalist group that is mounting a growing campaign against them.” She also mentioned that Bonn likes to “boast of their city’s tolerance.” In other words, she is suggesting that the city was a peaceful and accepting place, until Muslims began living there.

Nowhere in her piece did Eddy hold the German Nationalists responsible for their actions. She explained that the intolerant group had threatened to show the discriminatory caricature to Muslims and the police were ready to block the view to avoid the conflict. But she later quoted Fassbender again, “[Police Officers] are trained to regularly take stones and broken bottles,” he said, “but not to be specifically attacked like this.” Taking the Muslim’s reaction without providing context, Eddy justifies the “angry Muslim” sentiment held by Bonn residents. It implies that Muslims were so violent that not even the police could handle the situation.

Throughout the piece, any quotes from the Muslims involved are practically non-existent. She only quoted Ms. Elbay, a disappointed Muslim woman. “Our image is always being destroyed,” Elbay said, “We do our best to try to live a normal life…and these people come and destroy it.” Eddy again failed to explain what provoked the violence. Here was a prime opportunity to get some insight into the Muslims’ point of view but Eddy’s investigation falls flat. What did Elbay mean when she said her image is always being destroyed? Has this happened before?

Eddy ended the piece with another quote from Hans-Peter Weisz, another resident, “You can understand how a hate against foreigners can grow.” By ending the article this way, the author is encouraging Islamophobia. Once again, Eddy is describing Muslims as foreign, violent and unwelcomed. She is also justifying the resentment the Bonn residents feel against Muslims and furthering the divide between them.

Unfortunately, Eddy’s inaccurate, negative portrayal of Muslims is not uncommon in the media. It is a reoccurring trend that can have negative consequences. One of these consequences is that the image of Muslims, as Elbay puts it, is consistently “destroyed.”