Open letter to those who receive forwarded anti-Muslim emails

I’m sure you’ve seen them. The forwarded emails on the dangers of Muslim men or how to win the war, often wrongly attributed to a high-ranking retired military official. These get circulated around inboxes, rallying the right and leaving progressives outraged.

At first glance, it is tempting to parse these emails – take them line-by-line and point out the fallacy, the inaccuracy, the indecency. But we need not do this. Not because it is time consuming and not because it isn’t correct. We need not do it because it does nothing to further the conversation, the civil debate.

But we cannot remain silent either. We must respond – not as progressives or liberals or democrats, from a blue state to a red state. We must respond because of the desire for peace.

Often these letters employ a great debating tactic. They defuse the traditional arguments against them – be it a racist policy like ethnic profiling or the limiting civil liberties for security – by embracing them. Yes, profiling is racist. But we must not worry about being politically correct during a time of war. Yes, wire-tapping is an invasion of privacy, but hard days call for hard choices.

Once they concede these points, they freely move on to their justifications never looking back. We cannot allow this. Racism is wrong. It is a foolish security policy, it is ripe for abuse, it fosters animosity outside white America. Limiting civil liberties is wrong. The progressive voice has always stood for expanded liberties, greater protection. We cannot ignore this point simply because they admit it; to do so is to give silent acceptance while rejecting it focuses the conversation back on progressive strongholds.

Secondly, these emails tend to be religious treatises. The forwards aren’t wrongly attributed to a rabbi, a priest, or a Southern Baptist but they read like a Christian apologist. So, let’s look at the religious components of the world today.

Hamas, Hezbollah, and Al-Qaeda are not synonymous. These are militant splinter groups. Likewise, Lebanon, Syria, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, and Palestine are not interchangeable. To take the complexity of the Middle East and reduce it to the simple claim that Muslims are terrorists and Muslim states support terrorism is ignorant. I’ve read, “Sure most Muslims are peaceful, but the peaceful Muslims don’t protect us from terrorist attacks.” The obvious response would be something like, “And most Israelis are peaceful but that didn’t protect Lebanon; those Christians in America sure like peace, but they are still wreaking havoc in the region.” And yes, this is true. But again, it isn’t the most effective point.

Instead, let’s look at the greater issue. Three groups that have dissimilar interests – have been at odds with one another in other situations – have all been named enemies of the state. Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, and Hamas are not jealous of our lifestyle, not contemptuous of democracy, not disdainful of Christianity. In fact, their opposition to the United States is not homogenous. For Al-Qaeda, the roots are in the Afghani Soviet War and Gulf War I. Continued presence in Afghanistan and Iraq fuel their anti-American sentiments. Hezbollah and Hamas are interested in the Palestinian-Israeli conflicts and the U.S. support of Israel. Al-Qaeda is virtually absent from the Palestinian issue.

This is just the surface, but let’s not pretend that all Muslims and even all extremist groups are forming some super Justice League of Arabia to combat the evil forces of The West. Hamas and Hezbollah are not the Wonder Twins. So, let’s stop pretending this is a cartoon enemy wrapped up in 26 minutes with nice sugar-coated cereal commercials as filler.

What is the role of Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, and Hamas to Islam? Again, this is complicated. But there is a clear use of religious rhetoric in their actions.

The question to fire back at these anonymous emails is where our religious rhetoric lies. It comes through in a few places. Unquestioning support of Israel has some connections to extremist Christians that see an expanded Israel as Biblical mandates (and necessary for the Apocalypse). I’m not going to pretend that this conversation hasn’t happened within the White House, but I also think it is wrong to claim that this is the driving force behind our Mid-East policy. Instead, I think Christian guilt is to blame. Israel is a Western Nation, established by Western States out of self-interest and Holocaust guilt. Those two factors – our need for an ally in the region and our shame after World War II – keep Christians silent and steer our policy. This is the first religious element.

Secondly, by reducing the three groups to the label of Islamic Terrorists we call the entire religion into question. “But the Koran says this, the Koran says that.” True, true, and what about the Torah and the Bible? We can proof-text all day. You say an eye-for-an-eye; I say love your enemy. We highlight the texts of Islam that suit our needs and imply a moral superiority in the Love of Jesus. We ignore our own texts of terror around violence and oppression.

Thirdly, these forwards make the religious fights between Muslims and Americans. This is to say that American is not a citizenship status, not a cultural mark, not a mark in a census, but an all out religion. Have you been baptized into the American lifestyle? Have you been born-again in the red, white, and blue? Have you been saved by the stars and stripes?

This last point can be explored endlessly. We don’t hide our pseudo-religiosity in our nationalism. We pledge allegiance to the flag. Our judicial systems are our scribes, interpreting the holy scripture of the constitution for daily living. The representatives serve as priests, extolling right living and virtues and being all you can be. We legislate our Levitical code. The president is our messianic king, in the role of good King David.

Criticizing policy is not just un-American; it is sinful. Why else would we ban flag burning? It is sacrilegious, right?

Well, I got news for you – American is not religion. At least it shouldn’t be. And if you got a forward from a known Christian then you should pounce on this. Can a Christian be a good American? For all the same reasons they claim a Muslim can’t be, the argument can be reversed.

So, name the religious nature of the argument and then shift it. We are about policy. We are about interactions between nations. We are about diplomacy.

“But you can’t negotiate with terrorists.” Because pitting them against the U.S. for religious reasons, reducing them to straw enemies and justifying war crimes by our military and allies is working so well?

Let’s look for the humanity around us. Let’s see the commonality across divisions. Let’s see Muslims as kindred spirits. Let’s see conservatives as brothers and sisters. And let’s open the conversation, never being satisfied for sound bites.