Dr. Craig Considine is a sociology professor at Rice University who I had the pleasure of meeting recently. He’s a young, bright, and insightful scholar who has extensively studied Muslim relations, Islamophobia, and the connection between religion and nationalism in various parts of the world, specifically the Middle East and Asia, the United States, and Ireland. Growing up Catholic, his interest in and defense of a religion he, not long ago, was very unfamiliar with, serves as a beacon of hope to the Muslim community that tolerance and acceptance within a Western society is not a pipe dream.
In his book, Islam, Race, and Pluralism in the Pakistani Diaspora, Considine discusses the plight of the Pakistani-Muslim, specifically in Boston, Massachusetts and Dublin, Ireland.
As an American-born Muslim, I’ve seen the perception of Islam transform in the eyes of Americans over the years. We went from being comfortably invisible to being seen as a threat to society, public safety, and patriotism – all of this practically overnight. While tensions were high during the ongoing wars in the Middle East, nothing brought Islam onto the Western radar quite like the September 11th attacks.
In the aftermath, the sad realization dawned on me that most people didn’t understand that Muslims had been living in the country for decades without issue. Also, the difference between race and religion seemed lost on many.
Of course, the terrorist groups behind the September 11th attacks didn’t care to emphasize that distinction. They carried out their attacks in the name of Islam, and they boasted terrorist strongholds in Muslim-majority nations. In the case of Pakistan, in particular, the nation had already gotten a bad reputation around the globe for being largely homogeneous, intolerant of outsiders, and highly conservative – again, all in the name of Islam.
As Dr. Considine describes, this led to the issue of equating Pakistanis “here” with the ones “there” – meaning Pakistanis in and out of Pakistan. Pakistanis abroad were believed to hold the same ideals and values as those in Pakistan. Perceived loyalties to the “motherland” were unfair and unfounded, and often resulted in laws and regulations against Pakistanis, specifically.
The identity of Pakistan as an extremist nation is interesting in itself. In fact, when Pakistan was created in the 1940s, it was intended as a safe haven for Muslims, a place where they could live without fear of persecution.
Pakistan was setup originally as a secular nation, but due to intolerant and extremist leaders, people who did not fit in with the conservative Muslim narrative were discouraged from living there. Over time, the country became inhospitable and unwelcoming to non-Muslims, making it the perfect place to breed extremist terrorist groups.
So, Islamic terrorism and extremism became synonymous around the world with Pakistanis, whether or not that was a fair association.
Considine states that now, “Anti-Pakistani racism…overlaps with Islamophobia.” This is a fundamentally flawed way of thinking, but it helps for us to understand how this came to be.
Ultimately, that’s the brilliance of Considine’s book. Nothing is gained from ignorance or blind hatred. Nothing can be gained from not knowing enough. And personifying a group of people versus seeing it as a group of individuals is a dangerous mistake to make. In such cases where stereotyping and generalizing demonizes a group of people to the point that they are being systematically discriminated against in various levels of government in various nations, it becomes time to rethink the narrative that’s being purported.
Islamophobia has been steadily increasing in Western nations, and the incessant threat of terrorist attacks is enough to drive people to paranoia. Similarly, whether or not a terrorist organization was behind an attack, by simply claiming to be, they achieve their actual goal – to spread terror.
Terrorist groups thrive on people’s fears, irrational or otherwise, and they depend on the general ignorance of the public to perpetuate these fears. By aligning themselves with an entire nation of people, they succeed in demonizing those people.
As far as I can see, the first step in slowing the momentum of Islamophobia and the insistence that Muslims, Pakistani or otherwise, do not belong as contributing members of Western societies, is gaining a deeper understanding of the religion and those who commit acts against humanity in its name.
Dr. Considine, admittedly, did not have a strong grasp of Islam or its people when he decided to learn more. But thankfully, he knew what he didn’t know. He recognized that he had a limited view on Islam, Pakistanis, and terrorism, and that he didn’t quite understand the link between them.
Considine’s book is a welcome and enlightening work of literature that is perhaps overdue. As a Muslim, I was grateful to read a non-Muslim’s balanced and unbiased report of the struggles facing the Pakistani-Muslim diaspora, and I was thankful that someone took the time to understand a people who had little direct impact on his own life.
For such a large group of people, the collective voice of the Pakistani people has been muffled and stifled by those who find it easier to discriminate against them than to learn from them. Having an “outsider” such as Dr. Considine speak on behalf of those drowned voices is a step in the right direction.
It’s easier to fear than it is to love. And it’s easier to dismiss than it is to understand. But in the end, where does that leave any of us? With peace of mind? With security?
No. Paranoia does not grant us any of these gifts.
But every step taken towards acceptance and tolerance should be celebrated as a victory in this world, and Islam, Race, and Pluralism in the Pakistani Diaspora is nothing short of this.
*This is an excerpt; Yasmin’s full review can be found at http://www.yasminaliyakhan.com.