Written April 22, 2009

The appointment of Dalia Mogahed is a positive move by President Obama as she is a well known figure within the Muslim and Arab community. Personally, I am a fan of hers because of her ‘ownage’ of Irshad Manji in a debate they had regarding Islam and she co-wrote a book with Professor John L. Esposito who's writings I avidly read. Mogahed is definitely knowledgeable about Islam and she is very aware of many of the issues that Muslims face. In light of all this, it is important that people have a longer memory than a couple of days.

Before moving on, it is important for people to be mindful that this is an appointed position and she is to act as an advisory to Obama on Muslim issues. It is completely unfair to expect Mogahed to have a tremendous impact on domestic and foreign policies. While it is possible that she could have an impact on both, people should not forget the limits and that this appointment does not excuse any of Obama’s foreign policies in “Muslim” countries whatsoever as they are largely unchanged from previous administrations (including George W. Bush).

People should not forget that it was only late last year when Mazen Asbahi, the former Muslim advisor, was forced to quit the Obama campaign because he was accused of being linked to the Muslim Brotherhood and other “Islamist” groups. Some will make the argument that he was not ‘kicked to the curb’ because Obama faced social pressures but that is exactly the point. He succumbed to those pressures and was forced to be a politician about it as with any of his moves. Obama also disowned the renowned and distinguished Professor Rashid Khalidi, also the Edward Said Chair of Arab Studies at Columbia University, after he was charged as being an “extremist” by the Palin/McCain ticket. While Asbahi has stated he still supports Obama regardless of being forced to resign, who else would he support? McCain? Politics is politics and I am sure he understands that. This is in addition to the fact that Obama regarded being labeled as a Muslim as a smear throughout his campaign. It is all practical politics. While a part of me was frustrated and hurt, the dominant part of me saw it to be necessary to get the Republicans out of office.

Obama does not respond well at all to such social pressures when Muslims are regarded as “extremists” regardless of the accuracy or credibility of such accusations. That is what the record shows. Thus, people should not delude themselves that this latest appointee will not be put on the chopping block if she gets caught up (it is already starting) with the same sort of accusations that Asbahi faced. It is very plausible that this could happen. The difference this time around is that Obama has already won the Presidency and will be less inclined (I would assume so) to succumb to such pressures. Nevertheless, I am quite sure that Mogahed is aware herself, understandably so, about the limits of what she can say to Obama, his administration and publicly. She is in a difficult position, there is no doubt about it.

Nothing negates this achievement and especially any of her past work, she is a proven leader, but people should not forget that Obama is a politician. During his campaign he was caught up in a number of controversies regarding Muslims and Arabs in general "smearing" his campaign. Probably the most well-known example was the two hijabis who was refused by Obama’s staff in posing with him in a picture. Later on, Obama apologized but why would he not? He is trying to reach out to Muslims. In light of this, while I think it is extremely cool for him to appoint a Muslim who wears a hijab, people are fooling themselves if this is not seen as a public relations ploy to repair the damages done during his campaign. That is just simple logic for people to understand. Of course, this attempt to repair that damage is completely fine and understandable.

Domestically, there is no question that this will ease some tensions for Muslims on an everyday level. Seeing the reaction of Islamophobic/racist individuals and organizations makes me extremely happy and aware of the thumb in the eye that Obama just gave them. Although, people should pre-occupy themselves with the question of whether or not this appointment would have any sort of impact on the current legal system in place in the United States that causes tremendous injustice toward Muslims, Arabs, Pakistanis and other minority groups (included non-Muslims of course). It should be common sense as well that it is highly unlikely that you would find her (publicly at least) making statements on the level of asking Obama to engage Hamas diplomatically, stop sending weapons to Israel and to follow international law in general to resolve the conflict -- in general, changing the direction of U.S. foreign and domestic policy in a concrete way addressing necessary political questions.

It is not a question of what Mogahed can do. It is a question of how much this appointment is a reflection of actual policies in place. One good symbolic gesture does not shed a positive light on everything else. Many people act as if this appointment characterizes Obama’s policies but the reality is that it does not. For a more in-depth analysis, visit: "A Review of President Obama's Foreign Policy".

I meet this with very "cautious optimism" for these very reasons. People should congratulate and rejoice in this symbolic gesture which could have an impact on actual policies while not deluding themselves in realizing the limits and the fact that Obama’s policies have not diverted much from previous administrations. He is as different from Bush as Bill Clinton was. That is not surprising as his funders are Clinton supporters and basic political theory should tell you that he will follow the same line. That is hardly a revolutionary idea and is purely common sense. As well, George W. Bush took on various initiatives as it relates to Muslim advisors also -- most famously, Dr. Sami Al-Arian.

When I used to write about George W. Bush and critically analyze every single one of his moves, practically everyone was appreciative of how specific I was with my analysis. I gave arguments and provided proofs based on my research from credible scholars in the relevant fields. While it was extremely rare for any of his moves to have some sort of “positive” side to them, for many people who did follow my writings, they did not deem it to be necessary at all. Why should it be? The focus is on criticism to realize the weak points in such moves. When it is warranted or relevant, you state the positive if there is any. These days, it is much harder to criticize the Obama administration without being regarded as a “hater, pessimist, unfair, etc.” and being generally disliked. Not to mention having to suffer through people quoting and taking non-politicians like Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. out of context just to prove the importance of Obama's rhetorical flourishes. Never before do I perform lyrics that puts me at a large risk of getting "Booed" because of the stuff I am saying regarding Obama. Most of the time, you do not win fans over by telling the truth and putting it in front of people's faces -- even people who once supported you in everything you did before. Especially when it comes to criticizing and analyzing the policies of someone's "hero".

In my case, I am providing criticism and analysis of a leader that is very well liked within the Muslim community that I am highly involved in due to selective reading of the evidence. It is not unusual that I am regarded as just one of those Muslims who just hates everything or what not. They need no reason, they just state it. I hate to make things personal but it is frustrating when you converted expecting people to have a proper balance of political, historical and religious outlook (majority are like that) but then you are met with people incapable of reasoned analysis. Of course, this goes for non-Muslim and non-religious people as well but I am speaking from within my own community.

Suddenly, all the rules that were applied to one politician are refused by the very same people who had open arms for my previous commentaries. Suddenly Obama should not be held accountable for his administration’s policies because of a whole gamut of excuses. People prefer a selective reading of the record in order to show just how different Obama is from previous administrations. I have heard them all: Change comes slow, He is trying his best, He does not control the policies and so on. I even read an extremely arrogant article demanding for Obama critics to prove their activist/community work credentials (or general good that they have done for humanity) in order to qualify as a credible critic. One thing is for sure, I am not winning the more emotional audience who have an unwavering attachment to Obama. While I can completely understand someone who lived through the civil rights struggle in the United States being completely emotional and nothing more (trust me, I would go way easier on engaging them in a discussion if I do at all), majority of people who are within the ages of 17 to 30 have no excuse but to look at the historical record and evidence in general when it comes to Obama as with everything else.

When Clinton stated publicly during his tenure as President that the U.S. will no longer politically, financially and militarily support General Suharto’s genocide in East Timor, Suharto backed off. It saved the lives of hundreds of thousands and all it needed was a public statement. All it required was for George W. Bush to make a phone call for Dr. Sami Al-Arian or for many U.S. prisoners languishing in the torture chambers of ally countries to be released from prison. Surely, Obama only needed to state that his administration would no longer support Israeli policies for their atrocities to stop but he instead expressed unwavering support as more shipments of U.S. manufactured weapons moved into Israel. He could not have given a green light to the indiscriminate bombings in Pakistan (to show that he has a tough stance on “terrorism”), killing hundreds of civilians, but he did. It is frustrating that every single time I have to write a criticism or reasoned analysis of his policies that I always have to write a pre-amble of this sort just to ensure that people would apply the same standard towards me as before. I could choose to ignore it (which I do in many cases), but I am speaking to the Muslim community in particular in this article, thus, I have no issue addressing it.

With all that said, I hope that my readers recall the same openness that you all used to apply to me. While it would be easier to just roll over and wait for Obama to deliver the next “miracle”, it is difficult to be blind to the context.

With all that said, bring on the accusations of me being a pessimist and a hater. Might as well call me a “radical jihadist” in the spirit of Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly who follow the same sort of rationale. To those who are willing to open their minds to what I am hoping will be taken as a reasoned analysis (if not, talk to me about it citing specific objections), I have nothing but respect for all of you.

In the spirit of resistance,
Critical Mood