Conference, Symposium, and Panel Reports

Perils of Empire: Islamophobia, Religious
Extremism, and the New Imperialism

The Association of Muslim Social Scientists of North America (AMSS) held
its 36th annual conference at the University of Maryland from 26-28 October
2007. Co-sponsored by the university’s Department of Government and Poli-
tics and featuring Dr. Charles E. Butterworth as its program chair, the presen-
ters discussed the “Perils of Empire: Islamophobia, Religious Extremism,
and the New Imperialism.” In his opening remarks, Butterworth mentioned
that he had been “somewhat taken aback” buy the theme, but that after five
months he found that the “topic is most just.” 
PANEL 1: FROM WITHIN AND WITHOUT: ISLAMOPHOBIC DISCOURSES IN THE
WEST. Alejandro Beutel (Minaret of Freedom Institute) opened the confer-
ence with how America’s counterterrorism policies (e.g., torture during inter-
rogations, racial profiling, the NSA domestic surveillance controversy, and
the use of FBI National Security Letters) do more harm than good. Ahmet
Tekelioglu (Boston University) challenged the traditional security studies
approach, namely, the security of the state means the security of its citizens
by mentioning other types of security: individual (human rights and the rule
of law), individuals qua citizens, and that of humanity itself.

Jasmin Zine (Wilfrid Laurier University, Canada), Friday’s keynote
speaker, examined how post-9/11 Canada has “pathologized and criminal-
ized” Islam and presented several disturbing examples (e.g., wudu’ is an
obsessive/compulsive disorder and praying is talking to spirits). 
PANEL 2: NEOCOLONIALISM AND MUSLIM REACTION. Robert Lawrence
(Albertus Magnus College) analyzed a Pepsi advertising campaign promis-
ing that “the consumption of Americanism is safe and manageable within
Arabian society.” Abdullah al-Arian (Georgetown University) spoke on how
colonialism galvanized religious social movements in Algeria, Egypt, and
Indonesia. Adel Ait-Ghezala (American University) argued that tourism
helps to recreate a colonial environment and thus debases local cultures and
peoples. 

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.software-partners.co.uk

http://www.software-partners.co.uk
http://www.software-partners.co.uk


PANEL 3: NEGOTIATING DIFFERENCE IN DAR AL-ISLAM AND BEYOND. Maliha
Chishti (University of Toronto, Canada) outlined how humanitarian work in
Afghanistan has been affected by being externally (American and British)
driven and by merging military, civilian, humanitarian, and development
groups to pursue a “winning hearts and minds campaign.” Mazen Hashem
(California State University) focused on the dynamics of Muslim minorities
(viz., the Kurds, the Shi`ahs, and the Amazigh [Berbers]) within Muslim-
majority countries. Muhammad Shafiq (Nazareth College) spoke on the need
for Muslims to understand that interfaith dialogue is neither a Christian con-
spiracy to convert Muslims nor an attempt to recreate Akbar’s Dini Ilahi.
PANEL 4: INTERNATIONAL ASPECTS OF ISLAMOPHOBIA. Etin Anwar (Hobart
and William Smith Colleges) examined the correlation between American
Islamophobia and Islamic radicalism in Indonesia, how the Qur’an is used to
justify Islamic radicalism, and how anti-Americanism affects religious toler-
ance. Dragos Stoica (Concordia University, Canada) discussed the Que-
becois’ “existential angst” and self-admitted fear of a universalistic Islam that
will cause their very restrictive and supposed “primordial” white/Catholic/
Quebec identity to disappear. Saeed Khan (Wayne State University) gave a
fascinating account of South Asian Muslim youths in Bradford, England,
who can find no place for themselves in the community mosque or at home,
because neither of these settings fit into their lived realities.
PANEL 5: THE DILEMMAS OF THE WAR ON TERROR AND THE TASK OF MOD-
ERATION. Christina Hellmich (St. Anthony’s College, Oxford University)
contended that 9/11 took the West by surprise and that because quick answers
were required, primary sources were not used, groups with different agendas
were lumped together, and certain assumptions were taken for granted (e.g.,
al-Qaeda is based upon Wahhabism, despite the possibility that the Saud fam-
ily might have hijacked `Abd al-Wahhab’s teachings for its own purposes).
Abdul Karim Bangura (Howard University) discussed, among other things,
why the Bush administration’s proposed AFRICOM should be scrapped, and
Shanna Edwards (Tahirih Justice Center) asked how there can be real dia-
logue if the Bush administration’s preconditions are really demands for
unconditional surrender with no guaranteed “rewards.”
PANEL 6: THE FEMINIST ENCOUNTER WITH ISLAM IN MUSLIM PRACTICE, IN
THE WESTERN PRESS, AND IN THE NEOCOLONIAL DISCOURSE. Michelle
Byng (Temple University) analyzed how the New York Times and the Wash-
ington Post reported on events affecting Muslims in England and France dur-
ing 2003-04. She mentioned that America has similar laws on the books that,
in some instances, have been used for the same purpose. She posited that this

148 The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 25:1

- -

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.software-partners.co.uk

http://www.software-partners.co.uk
http://www.software-partners.co.uk


coverage was a subtle attempt to convince Americans that “it is common
sense for Muslim women to remove their veils.” Itrath Syed (University of
British Columbia, Canada) contended that Muslim feminists are excluded
from almost all discourses and that being Muslim is seen as being outside
modernity. Timothy Elhami Kaldas (Georgetown University) opined that a
western “rescue” mission vis-à-vis Muslim women, whether in colonized
Algeria or today, involves the need to identity a threat and/or victim, silence
the victim, propose a solution, and then implement it. Shabana Mir (indepen-
dent researcher and scholar) examined how campus [youth] culture inhibits/
facilitates the construction of Muslim women’s identity.
PANEL 7: ISLAMOPHOBIA IN THE ACADEMY AND COURTS OF LAW. Robert
Crane (independent researcher and scholar) analyzed how 9/11 was both the
result of Muslims’ demonizing the West and led to the West’s demonizing the
Muslim world. According to him, one must “demonize what one fears in
order to destroy it.” For the neocons, the driving force is the fear of oncom-
ing global chaos. Judith Jensen (Educational Solutions) reported on her orga-
nization’s work among Israelis and Palestinians to find common ground
through objectivity and personal contact. Imad-ad-Dean Ahmad (Minaret of
Freedom Institute) spoke on how the grand jury system has been abused in
the service of Islamophobia as regards four cases:  The “Paintball Eleven,”
`Abd al-Halim Asghar, Sami al-Arian, and the Northern Virginia charities.

Before the eagerly anticipated keynote address, members of the newly
elected AMSS Board of Directors were announced and Imad-ad-Dean
Ahmad updated the audience on the Islamic Resource Bank. Charles Butter-
worth then presented the best paper awards: first place: Usamah Ansari (York
University, Canada), “Naming ‘the Muslim’ through Citation in Bollywood’s
Lucknow Muslim Social Films”; second place: Timothy Elhami Kaldas
(Georgetown University), “French Feminists to the Rescue: A Centenary of
Metropolitan Discourses on the Salvation of the ‘Distressed Muslim
Women,’ 1900 and the Present”; and third place: Sarah Swick (American
University): “Dubbing a Western Muslim Culture.”

Mahmood Mamdani (Herbert Lehman Professor of Government in the
Departments of Anthropology, Political Science, and International and Public
Affairs, Columbia University), the keynote speaker at Saturday’s banquet,
expounded upon “Islamophobia, Blasphemy, and Bigotry.” He opined that
the post-9/11 tone in America was set by Samuel Huntington (the “clash of
civilizations” and Islam’s “bloody borders”) and Bernard Lewis (use “good”
Muslims to quarantine/control “bad” Muslims). However, all cultures are his-
torical and thus political thought and political Islam have historical contexts.
Defining bigotry as an assault from the outside and blasphemy as an assault

Conference, Symposium, and Panel Reports 149

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.software-partners.co.uk

http://www.software-partners.co.uk
http://www.software-partners.co.uk


from the inside, he asserted that the Danish cartoon was a sign of bigotry, not
blasphemy. According to him, this event was the beginning of a “clash of civ-
ilizations” in Europe, for the movement from “freedom of speech” to “pro-
tection of civilization” was very rapid.  He also showed how freedom of
speech can be used to “set up a minority for target practice,” as in Rawanda.
Both the European Right and Left have latched onto Islamophobia, which is
becoming an “ideology of hate, part of the ‘war on terror’ and ‘clash of civi-
lizations.’” He called upon Muslims to realize that Islamophobia is not “the
issue”; rather, there are many other issues (e.g., pluralism) that Muslims
should take up in order to open their ranks and find allies.
PANEL 8: CULTURAL POLITICS IN MUSLIM DIASPORAS IN THE WEST. Marvin
Shaub (University of Tilburg, the Netherlands) spoke on how earlier immi-
grants came to terms with mainstream American society and how Muslim
immigrants are faring. He suggested that many Muslims might find it hard
to be truly bi-cultural citizens because they consider themselves “Muslim”
first and then “American.” Sarah Swick (American University) discussed her
research project on how young Muslim women in Britain create their own
space within mainstream British culture.
PANEL 9: THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY: THE MUSLIM OTHER IN
POLITICS AND CULTURE. Louay Safi (Islamic Society of North America)
asserted that deliberate attempts to mystify the Middle East (e.g., “This is the
Middle East, after all”) seek to provoke an immediate association between
Islam and the Middle East with fear. The resulting refusal/inability of many
to locate the conflict’s real sources leads only to self-delusion, self-fulfilling
prophecies, and an ever-worsening situation. Usamah Ansari (York Univer-
sity, Canada) analyzed how Indian movies set in Lucknow use the city’s
physical architecture and urbanity, as well as certain markers (e.g., flowery
and poetic speech, supposed nostalgia, decadence, the use of Urdu instead of
Hindi, clothing, and bodily comportment) to “otherize” Indian Muslims.
This, he claimed, fits in well with the Hindu nationalists’ oft-repeated phrase
to Muslims: “Go to Pakistan or go to your grave.” Junaid Ahmad (College of
William and Mary) contended that a wide range of Muslim organizations
have been lumped together under the inaccurate term Islamo-fascism and pre-
sented as successors to Nazism and communism to remind people of Hitler
and Mussolini in order to generate widespread fear and, perhaps, acceptance
of the “need” for a massive preemptive strike. 

Jay Willoughby
American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences

Herndon, Virginia

150 The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 25:1

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.software-partners.co.uk

http://www.software-partners.co.uk
http://www.software-partners.co.uk