Since The Atlantic published Wajahat Ali’s piece, “A Muslim Among Israeli Settlers,” a firestorm has erupted within the North American Muslim community, largely focused on what seemed to most Muslim and pro-Palestinian readers to be an apology for Zionism, and the author’s relationship with the controversial Muslim Leadership Initiative.  I personally found the piece offensive for many reasons, particularly the way in which it tended to equate the religious fanaticism of the Israeli settlers with the determination of the Palestinians to resist their messianic fantasies.  I was particularly offended by his incredulous reaction to the Palestinian in Khalil (Hebron to those unable to move beyond the time frame of the Old Testament) who, despite being surrounded by fanatic Israeli settlers, was unwilling to sell his house to them for $4 million, or for any price.

In any case, there have been several excellent critiques of this article on Facebook, including this one by Sylvia Chan-Malik, deconstructing the sympathetic language Wajahat used to describe the Zionist settlers, with the judgmental and hectoring rhetoric he reserved for the Palestinians.  Hafsa Kanjwal also had on her Facebook page an excellent critique of Wajahat’s attempt to set the Kashmiri struggle against that of the Palestinians and exposed it for a classic case of “whataboutery”, noting her disgust as a Kashmiri that her struggle would be used to undermine that of the Palestinians.  Many others have been disgusted by his reaction of running to the Atlantic, and publishing there a complaint about the Muslim reaction to his first piece, which led the Islamic Society of North America to disinvite him to their annual conference.  He is now taking on the appearance of a free speech martyr as a result.

I have said before, and I will say it again: I greatly admire Wajahat’s work on Fear, Inc., the Roots of the Islamophobia Network.  It is ironic that since teaming up with MLI, he is actually cooperating with some of the very same funders of the Islamophobia Network in the name of inter-religious dialogue.  In a brief exchange with Wajahat on Facebook a couple of weeks ago after his first Atlantic article, I told him that he was not entitled to speak anywhere, and that he had to take responsibility for his participation in MLI, and he could either admit it was a mistake (which I counseled him to do), or defend it, and try to persuade us that we are mistaken.  But he could not attempt to hide from it, pretend it was not a big deal, and then resent being excluded by Muslim groups who find collaboration with Uber-Zionists to be, well, at a minimum, distasteful.

What many of us may not have heard, however, is the voices of Berkeley MSA students from the years Wajahat mentioned in his Atlantic piece. One of them sent me an essay he wrote in response to the Atlantic piece, defending the Berkeley MSA against Wajahat’s charges, and basically calling him out for many half-truths.  With his permission, I am reproducing the response below:

Fight Bill C-51! It’s about you, not terrorism!

My article on the impact of the upcoming 2012 US Presidential elections has just come out in the latest issue of The Islamic Monthly.  It argues that Muslims should have no expectations of change with respect to the policies they care about regardless of who wins.

Despite all the turmoil in Egypt, elites in Egypt can apparently unite in mocking the appearance of Muhammad Mursi’s wife, who wears what is know in Egypt as a khimar. 

Last night, I gave a talk at the Hartford Seminary titled “Liberalism and Islam: Pitfalls and Potentials.”  The talk centered around two themes: how normative liberalism reacts to intolerant groups in its midst, and what are the religious obligations of liberal Muslim citizens in a liberal democracy generally, and the war on terror in particular.

Given my criticisms of US policy in the Middle East, the “War on Terror,” and its “lawfare” against US Muslims, one might reasonably question why I should remain a US citizen at all?  Indeed, I have sometimes asked myself “At what point would the limit be crossed?”  I guess the plain reason why I have never seriously contemplated renouncing US citizenship, and doubt that I ever would, is my deep conviction that substantial groups within US society share my deep opposition to these policies as well, and that the future belongs to us, not to those status quo forces that perpetuate atrocities in the name of the American people.  This otherwise disturbing article in Slate, which details the extent of the torture and international law-breaking practiced by the United States during the Bush Administration, crimes which the Obama administration foolishly chose to inter rather than investigate as the crimes that they were, strangely confirms my long-term view of the United States.  I hope my fellow American Muslim citizens, particularly the post-9/11 generation, understand that they have allies in the US; they should not think that all Americans are anti-Muslim paranoids; and that it is possible to work together with those Americans to bring a halt to these abuses, and the further entrenchment of the “creeping” surveillance and torture state.