One of the greatest dangers facing American democracy today is extreme partisanship. The division of public and politics along party lines hinders political discourse and halts social progress at great costs to society. If little else, Americans can agree on that. But, as soon as you ask who is responsible for political bipolarity, people are divided: Fox News or the liberal media, fundamentalist evangelicals or the eastcoast elite, rich republicans or wealthy democrats, SUV drivers or treehuggers.

“Split: A Divided America” is a documentary that shines a light on the roots and consequences of this political divide. While it can’t solve all the problems and leaves the viewer with open questions, there are still some insights to be drawn from it.

First of all, the paradigm of red states vs. blue states is a construction, and not a political reality. But, its adoption is of use for some people, which explains its popularity. Partisanship can win campaigns and makes the media’s job a little easier. Alas—it fails to describe a much more complex reality.

The 2008 documentary features well known scientists, publicists, and political activists such as Robert D. Putnam, Nicholas Kristof, Amy Goodman, Noam Chomsky and Jesse Jackson.

Plus, it is remarkably bipartisan and although the producers are part of the story, they manage to step aside and let their subjects speak for themselves most of the time. In taking this approach, “Split” is a step away from the Michael Moore kind of opinionated reportages, that preach to the choir and seem to divide rather than unite.

The movie is not officially available in Europe yet, but—much to our delight—we found it on Hulu (once again, how to watch Hulu if you are outside the U.S.):

In this article, I explore a different kind of church. Please excuse that for now it is only in German.

Go to article here.

To find out, www.tapmag.net (TM) asked Katrin Simon (KS) of the Free University of Berlin a few questions. Katrin Simon is a PhD student in Islamic Studies, specializing in African American Islam, who just returned from New York where she conducted fieldwork.

TM:
Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Ahmadinejad, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Jihad… Since 9/11 2001, it seems like Islam has been one of the hottest potatoes out there – politically and religiously. Yet, google “muslim vote 2008 election,” and you get 303,000 hits (July 18, 2008), but hardly any from the mainstream media, dealing with the Muslim vote during this election.

Do Muslims not have a say in U.S. politics, are they not relevant, or do they simply not care?

KS:

American Muslims definitely care! They have to, since they are under scrutiny from various sides: the government and aligned institutions, other faith communities in the U.S., the American public and media in general, or Muslims worldwide. As we have millions of Muslims in the U.S. (around 6 million is the most quoted number) they are also relevant since these persons are possible voters. The question is if they matter as “Muslims,” that is, if they form something like a ‘Muslim voting block,’ where self-identifying Muslims rally around a “Muslim opinion.”

The U.S. Muslim community is the most diverse in the whole world. More than a third are African-Americans (mostly converts), a third have an Arab background, and a quarter a South Asian one. You could only speak about a Muslim voting bloc if those people gave priority to their Muslim identity instead of national, ethnic, racial, or class considerations. But studies show that there exist huge fissures along these lines, although there seems to be a tendency towards a “Muslim consciousness” since 9/11. Before, immigrant Muslims, who were mainly middle-class, gave priority to their conservative attitudes in moral issues and economy, and came out supporting G.W. Bush strongly in the 2000 election, whereas African American Muslims voted mostly Democrat, like the black community in general. Since 9/11 and the Iraq war, however, immigrant Muslims share with their black Muslim brethren the feeling of marginalization, stigmatization, and alienation from mainstream America and in 2004 shifted to John Kerry.

Nonetheless, ethnic lobby groups still represent more Muslim voters than decidedly Muslim lobby groups. From a strategic point of view, this is definitely more effective, since support from a Muslim group still gains negative press for any politician. The main reason for the invisibility of a Muslim voting block is that American Muslims have failed in establishing effective advocacy groups that add an outspoken ‘Muslim perspective’ to American public debates. Whether there is no will, or simply a lack of ability, to do that is a hotly contested issue even within the American Muslim community.

TM:
One of the most persistent, and effectual, scare tactics of the 2008 campaign has been to refer to, and speculate about, Barack Obama’s Muslim ties. One might ask, why this should even be offensive in the first place, in a country like the US, where the 1st Amendment to the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion? But the Obama campaign has wasted quite a lot of energy and time on denying those claims (e.g., “Know the Facts” from Obama’s homepage stating: “Obama has never been a Muslim, and is a commited Christian”). In fact, according to recent surveys, in the wake of the much-debated The New Yorker cover, 12% still thought Obama is Muslim.

In 2008, how is this still possible? And who has failed more in improving the “Muslim image” in the US – the media, the politicians, or the Muslims themselves?

KS:
When I talk to non-Muslim Americans, I am sometimes told that they cannot vote for a Muslim. The name (Barack Hussein Obama), the stepfather [Lolo Soetoro from Indonesia], and his having attended a Muslim school [in Jakarta, Indonesia] (which is false), seem to be proof enough. Sometimes people add that if Obama was an apostate he would have already been killed by Muslims, so he must still be a Muslim. But fortunately, these voices become increasingly silent.
The point is that being Muslim still seems to contradict the possibility of being a ‘good American citizen,’ as if it were a question of double loyalties. We should not forget that it took a long time before Catholics stopped being accused of being more loyal to the Vatican than to the U.S. [editors note: even JFK battled with this throughout the majority of his 1960 presidential campaign]. So Muslims are definitely not the first groups [charged with such accusations]. But since 9/11, “Islam” as a whole is perceived as the big enemy of America, and voting for a Muslim could mean to vote for the wolf in sheep’s clothing – for the enemy within.

Even a half-educated American public believes to know this much about Islam: that in “Islam” there is no division of religious and state affairs; and they take that as proof that a Muslim president could not possibly distinguish between his own religious identity and political considerations (G.W. Bush, by the way, is the best proof of a president who was bringing his own religious convictions to the office). But unfortunately, the American public, including the media, fail to acknowledge that something like “the Islam” does not exist – that Islam is as diverse as the 1 billion Muslims in the world, and that there is no single, exclusive opinion about how politics and religion should relate to each other. But who failed in improving the Muslim image in the U.S. is difficult to say. I tend to think that this question is so tightly connected with American foreign policy that as long as, especially, the situation in the Middle East is presented as a “clash of civilization” with Islam – instead of as tensions in a region whose inhabitants are predominantly Muslim – this image won’t change.

TM:
Recently, Obama has struggled to cater to Jewish voters, going so far as to declaring that “Jerusalem is the capital of Israel – and it must remain undivided” (words which Obama later admitted were “poorly chosen”).

On the Muslim side, however, the presidential candidates have not done much catering. For instance, Mrs. Clinton returned $50,000 in political contributions, which she received from the American Muslim Alliance (AMA). This is a woman who ended up loaning her own campaign over $10,000,000 of her own money! What is more, in September 2007, at the 44th annual convention of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) in Chicago, all of the Republican and Democratic presidential hopefuls in the race at that time were invited to speak. Not one accepted the invitation!

Are American Muslims really that bad? Is there simply no room for Muslims in American politics?

KS:
A brilliant article in Islamica Magazine dealt with the Muslim community’s “Obama problem”. Its author, Firas Ahmad, wrote about the difficulty of supporting a candidate, while knowing that each support from your side will lessen his chances of winning. Obama would lose much more votes if he is suspected of having too close ties to Islam, than he could gain by directly addressing possible Muslim voters. This is the only reason why a politician would reject a voting block, although he usually will try to get as many voters as possible, especially in such a competitive and open-ended campaign. So the question here relates directly to the public image of Islam and Muslims in the U.S. Furthermore, this point is directly connected to the important Jewish vote: American media reported a lot about disappointed Jewish voters, who think about switching to McCain instead of voting for Obama, now that Hillary is done. This could be dangerous for Obama, since Jews have traditionally been a reliable support of the Democratic vote.

As for the ISNA convention: no politician would risk being seen in a picture, let alone on TV, together with certain participants of the biggest Muslim gatherings in America. Most of them are definitely good and loyal citizens, but a few are nonetheless famous for their critical attitude towards the American political system. The Muslim vote is [simply] not important enough. Also, thanks to Bush, most Muslims will not vote Republican anyway. So Obama has no reason to show up with Muslims in public. Most Muslim I have been talking to understand that this would only bring damage to his campaign, and if there is anything most American Muslims currently want, it is for Obama [to win the election].

TM:
On January 4, 2007, Keith Ellison (R, DFL–MN) became the first Muslim to assume office in the US Congress.

On March 13, 2008, André Carson became the United States Representative for Indiana’s 7th congressional district, becoming the second Muslim to hold office in the US Congress.

Ellison was sworn in using Thomas Jefferson’s Qur’an from 1764, rather than a Bible – a first-time-ever in the history of the United States. Sure enough, this garnered a lot of controversy in the national media, to which Ellison responded: “It demonstrates that from the very beginning of our country, we had people who were visionary, who were religiously tolerant, who believed that knowledge and wisdom could be gleaned from any number of sources, including the Quran.”

Are Ellison and Carson an indication of a new breed of American political visionaries?

KS:
Did Ellison and Carson get elected because they were Muslim? I don’t think so. They are both African Americans, and in the black community, there is almost no family without [a Muslim member] – be it “orthodox Islam,” Nation of Islam or anything else. Their religious identity is neither their only point of reference when they make politics, nor, from what I can tell, their prioritized focus. Only the kind of scandal that emerged as soon as the media covered Ellison’s story, his possible connections to the Nation of Islam (which most white Americans perceive as anti-white racist), and his wish to be sworn in on the Qur’an, put Ellison on the spot. He had to make clear, whether his religious convictions threaten his loyalty towards his job as an American politician. I think, he chose the best way by bringing his Muslim identity in a context with American history, with a Founding Father even, and religious tolerance as one of the traditionally most important American values. I am not sure if he thought about that before he got into that trouble – I tend to think that it was a sort of invented narrative, but definitely a helpful and convincing one.

At a talk at NYU, Ellison stressed his eagerness to bring America back to the ideals on which it was founded. He explained that he became a better Muslim during his election campaign. When “Media&Co.” harrassed him, he was forced to study Islam more extensively, he told the audience, and he realized then, during these hardships, how far this country was from the values it had once promised to its citizens.

TM:
In New York, you were conducting fieldwork by attending Salaatul Jum’ah (Friday prayer) at the Masjid at-Taqwa mosque in Brooklyn. What were the things being addressed there? Also, the imams are (in)famous, amongst other things, for their political influence on the Muslim community. How would you describe their role during this elections?

KS:
Almost each khutba (sermon) dealt, in one way or another, with politics and the [2008] elections. But, as far as I can tell, this is not representative of all mosques in the U.S. My impression is that African American mosques put a higher emphasis on political debates, similar to most black churches (with which many of the black imams grew up). Immigrant mosques (and most American mosques are still ethnic mosques), however, only talk indirectly about political affairs, e.g., by addressing moral value topics, but rarely by naming politicians or parties.

A big topic is of course American foreign policy. But interestingly, most sermons dealt much more with Palestine than with Iraq. Palestine also seems to be the big topic around which African American and immigrant Muslims unite, although immigrants are in general more concerned with foreign policy issues, whereas black Muslims focus on domestic policy. But Palestine was repeatedly presented as the symbol of American (and Israeli) hubris and hypocrisy, where democratic evolutions are oppressed in the name of democracy and human rights.

Also, the khtubas emphasized Muslim experiences of discrimination in the U.S. – be it at airports, in schools or at the working place; of raids and detaining; and biased and skewed media representation. Again, the hypocrisy of the American system was addressed, which, for many Muslims, seems neither willing, nor able, to fulfill the promises of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution – although they recognize the core values that are the basis of these documents. Only one imam openly questioned the system as a whole, and the values on which it was grounded.

For a long time, it was a contested issue within the American Muslim community, whether one could, and should, participate in elections. Today, obviously, most agree that if one wants to have any influence, one has to vote. Even Louis Farrakhan from the Nation of Islam openly endorsed Obama, and encouraged his audience to vote for him (which was, ironically, possibly more detrimental than beneficial to the Obama campaign).

Many Muslims have difficulties endorsing a candidate who, on the one hand, supports an end to the Iraq mission and shows no open hostility towards Muslims, while, on the other, favors the possibility of homosexual civil unions and a liberal abortion law. This is, by the way, a problem that many Muslims face in Europe as well: although they are, for the most part, conservative regarding moral issues, they nonetheless vote for liberal parties who represent their economic interest and embrace a multi-cultural and tolerant model of society (including groups many Muslims have problems with). At the same time, conservative parties often reject conservative Muslim voters by anti-Islamic and anti-immigrant rhetoric. This is one reason why some Muslims favored Republican Ron Paul – a “compassionate conservative.”
But all imams were united in their opinion that it is a blessing that the system forbids Bush to run for a third term. And most of them seem to hope that Obama, as soon as the election is over, can openly articulate his sympathy for American Muslims – which they believe he sincerely feels, even if he has to hide it for now.

Written and edited by Peter Dahl

The Danish People’s Party (DPP, Dansk Folkeparti) has published election posters (here) featuring a drawing by Alexander Ross from 1683 of the Prophet. The poster reads in bold, capital letters: “Freedom of Speech is Danish, Censorship Isn’t – We Hang on to the Danish Values,” and continues, “Danish People’s Party – Your Country, Your Choice.” According to Danish People’s Party’s party leader, Pia Kjærsgaard, “We [Danish People's Party] are not doing this to provoke, but are doing it exactly because a drawing – a 400 year old drawing of Muhammad – is a symbol of the freedom of speech in Denmark, because we hung on to that freedom of speech.”

As in 2005, the Danish government does not intend to take any actions against the party, although the word has already spilled into the Arab world. In a press release on Oct. 30, the Great Mufti of Jerusalem, Sheikh Husseini, condemns the drawing, which he calls both “uncivilized” and “hateful,” according to leading Danish newspaper Politiken. The press release follows the denunciation issued by Saudi-Arabia Oct. 29, and encourages the Danish government to put an immediate stop to Danish People’s Party’s “illegal activities,” the Danish daily notes. “Due to Jerusalem’s special status as the third holiest city in Islam, his words weigh heavily throughout the Muslim world, when he encourages all Arab and Muslim states ‘not to remain silent’,” Politiken predicts.

Danish Foreign Minister, Per Stig Møller (the Conservative, De Konservative), vindicates Danish People’s Party’s campaign, and has this to say about the Great Mufti’s press release to Politiken: “I’m having a hard time understanding why it is uncivilized, since it is a 300 year old drawing; I don’t want to defend the Danish People’s Party, but it is, after all, an existing Islamic drawing, so it can’t be uncivilized to use it, considering it hasn’t been crossed out by Islamic censorship.”

Denmark came under serious fire in much of the Arab world, and woke up to mixed reviews in the Western press, when Danish newspaper Jyllands Posten decided to publish 12 cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad 2 years ago, on Sept. 30, 2005. The result: possibly the greatest diplomatic crisis in Danish history during which, especially, Danish dairy merger Arla suffered from boycotts and an estimated $2,000,000 deficit pr. day. Among the Cartoons was one depicting the Prophet Muhammad with a bomb in his turban; according to Jyllands Posten, they were intended to spark a “much-needed” national debate about freedom of speech and freedom of press, after more and more journalists had expressed increasing anxieties about criticizing Islam in Denmark, some fearing for their lives.

Following a delegation of leading Danish Muslims to various Arab and Muslim countries (during which were presented cartoons that had not even been published by Jyllands Posten), the controversy took on unforeseeable proportions as Danish consulates, embassies, flags, and pictures of the Prime Minister were set ablaze by angry protesters in as different places as Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nigeria and the Philippines; in Nigeria, Pakistan and Afghanistan more than 40 people died as a result of violent protests. Throughout, the Danish government refused to infringe on the rights of Jyllands Posten, citing freedom of press. Reports later surfaced, documenting that the Danish Prime Minister, Anders Fogh Ramussen (Left, or “Venstre”), had refused to meet with diplomats from the Arab world, calling it a matter of principal, thereby extending the crisis well into 2006.

Surely, to most this is old news. What apparently is not, however, is the immigration debate, which has crowned the Danish political agenda for 10+ years, since Danish People’s Party was founded by Pia Kjærsgaard in 1995. The party, which former Danish Prime Minister, Poul Nyrup Rasmussen (Social Democrats, Social Demokraterne), described as “not housebroken” in a 1999 speech at the People’s Assembly (Folketinget), soon soared to the top of Danish politics, making it, until just recently, Denmark’s 3rd biggest party and an influential coalition partner of the current government.

DPP is also one of the most disputed parties on the Danish political scene. Statements made on national television, on the pulpit of the Danish People’s Assembly, in party newsletters and at national conventions tell the story of a party that has done all rhetorically possible to stay in the political spotlight – for better or worse:

“Let me make it clear: Muslims must live in Muslimland – and that’s not here [Denmark].” (Mogens Camre at DPP’s Annual National Convention, Sept. 9, 2004)

“I completely agree with Søren Krarup [MP, DPP] that it is the exact same symbol – a veil and a swastika.” [Pia Kjærsgaard on TV-Avisen [Danish national news program], Apr. 29, 2007)

“…Islam is not a religion in the traditional sense. It’s a terrorist organization, trying to obtain world domination through violence” (Michael Rex at DPP’s Annual National Convention, Sept. 15.-16., 2001)

“It’s been said that 9/11 caused the clash of civilizations. I disagree. Because a clash of civilizations would require two civilizations, and that’s not the case. There’s but one civilization, and that’s ours.” (Pia Kjærsgaard, opening of People’s Assembly, Oct. 2, 2001)

Comprising app. 6 percent of the Danish 5.5 million inhabitants, about the same as the state of Maryland, immigrants (with emphasis on Muslims, comprising an estimated 2 percent) have been a political hot potato, and has secured DPP a solid following especially in rural towns and provinces across the nation. Promoting itself on a strict immigration policy, Danish People’s Party has been instrumental in making Denmark one of the hardest countries in the EU to get into, despite being one of the richest. Inevitably, this has led to tensions, with many Muslims feeling targeted by the media and politicians, a development criticized by the UN Human Rights Commission in their 2006 Annual Report on the elimination of racial discrimination – also, expressing an overall concern about the tendencies in Europe, as a whole.

In 2006, video clips surfaced of a Danish People’s Party Youth summer camp at which seemingly drunken people had a contest about who could make the “best” drawing of the Prophet Muhammad – among the contestants was a depiction of the Prophet as a urinating, beer-drinking camel. The clips were shot by Danish artist Martin Rosengaard Knudsen, part of a group of artists called Defending Denmark, who had joined and infiltrated DPPY since March 2005. The clips, however, caused but a number of big “Ooh’s” and “Ah’s!” As a spokesman for Danish group Muslims in Dialogue, not surprised by the event, told FOX News: “The Danish People’s Party has through its history made a virtue to make humiliating and generalized statements about minority groups, especially Muslims.”

In 2007, however, Danish People’s Party has tried to weed out bad seeds that unfavorably affect the polls. The result: deleterious dissension within party ranks, and accusations of tyranny, culminating in a free-fall in the voter polls. Today, DPP is predicted to get 9.8 percent of the votes, a deficit of 3,5 pp, or 6 mandates in the People’s Assembly, compared to the national elections in 2005. With the Socialist People’s Party (Socialitistk Folkeparti) looking to double their mandates according to recent polls, and New Alliance (Ny Alliance) co-founded by the Muslim, and former political profile of the Radical Left (Radikale Venstre), Naser Khader, posing a serious threat to DPP as a potent coalition partner, it could be a rocky road for Danish People’s Party. Not that they are not used to that.

This week in an interview with Jyllands Posten, Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigade spokesperson, Khaled al-Jabbari, slighted at the consequences of the election poster: “This party is bargaining with the Danish people’s blood. That is dangerous.” When asked whether to take that as a threat, al-Jabbari responded, “No, I am not threating, I am warning. We do not wish to see the Danish people as an enemy, but this could lead to actions,” stating he himself would be willing to actively attack Danish institutions to defend the Prophet. The Palestinian Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigade is designated a terrorist organization in the EU, USA and in Israel.

While al-Jabbari’s words might fan the fire in the Middle East, they are sure to bring the Danish People’s Party to a political boil in the last 9 days before the Danes cast their ballot. Danes are habitually allergic to outside threats. After a period of national division over the Muhammad Cartoons in 2005, by January 2006, after reports of burning embassies and flags, 79 percent of Danes polled said that they did not want the Danish Prime Minister to apologize. This time round, he, too, has denounced al-Jabbari’s statements.

In a nation with more than 1500 years of history, which once spread from Iceland to France, Denmark is first in line of European countries with an identity crisis waiting for psychoanalysis. With the new realities and challenges posed by an ever-growing influence of outside cultures, statements like “We Hang on to the Danish Values” make Danish People’s Party all the more diffuse. One thing seems certain, however: Danish People’s Party is going to need more than divine prophecy to relive their glory days. Maybe al-Jabbari is that secret ingredient?

Election date is Nov. 13. Who will the Danes let define their new identity?

Pictures from Politiken.dk

By Peter Dahl

It is a funny thing symbols, really. One day, they’re decorating your birthday cake, the next, they’re burning on the West Bank. One day, they’re in your daily Qur’an, the next, they’re in a Danish, a French or a German newspaper with a bomb in their turban. One day, some Americans think your country is the capital of Stockholm (not kidding!), the next, they’re “supporting the Danes’ rights to freedom of speech” by drinking Carlsberg and eating Danish hot-dogs during football games. Seems ridiculous? It is. And it is not.

We all know the pictures – if not of the Muhammad Cartoons (because your local newspaper/tv-station refused to show them), then of the scenes of angry Muslims across the world. We don’t have to get into the violence – that debate is dead and buried. There can and should be no acceptance for the scenes of violence, or the jeopardizing of innocent people’s lives.

Aside from the fact that a hot-dog is never going to get Denmark out of a diplomatic hurricane the size of Katrina, it is ridiculous, because it should have never gone so far. To stay with Katrina for a second, the levees were obviously breaking, and people should have been evacuated a long time ago. From a Western standpoint, defending the right to freedom of press and freedom of speech is more than just rhetoric; it is our vision, and it is the price we have won from centuries of hard struggle. That is not to say we cannot teach others how to play, but, to my recollection, no one even asked us if we could come out. Jyllands Posten did not necessarily fail when it decided to publish the cartoons, but the world press failed fatally when it neglected to show both sides of the story.

The cartoons and the chaos were the result of almost a decade of radicalization in Danish immigration politics, a conservative coalition government containing Dansk Folkeparti (“Danish People’s Party”, a right-wing party accused of racism on several counts), and an increasingly harsh tone in the public immigration debate. Was it wrong then to want and to have a debate? Absolutely not! It was an acute necessity. But as Theo van Gogh’s tragic murder, and the burning banlieues of Paris illustrated, the wheels of globalization are racing, and it’s a bumpy road – Europe is not, and never was, a one-way street. The fortress that was once national borders is now wide open. What we do and say in the West will be felt and heard in the East.

It is not ridiculous that we stand our ground, but when we know it’s contaminated, we had better get off! We should be able to comment on anything from cars to religion, without having to fear either Opel or the orthodox. But insolence is for kids. It’s a big world, and though the children are our future, a big world calls for grown-ups to lead the way.

That the cartoons would make the blood boil in Denmark, the Gaza Stripe, in Pakistan, in Lybia, and Syria was no surprise. Not if you knew the full story. Unfortunately, not many did. If we fight to maintain the right to practice free speech and free press, the least we can do is to tell the story, the whole story – no omissions, no holds barred.

By Peter A. Dahl
This article was written as part of the M100 Youth Media Workshop 2007 on Sept. 2, 2007