people in the af-pak area care a lot about af-pak. but why should muslims from other areas of south asia care about af-pakis inordinately? by inordinately, i mean more than palestinian arabs? it isn’t a big secret that af-pakis tend to view muslims of south india and bangladesh as racially inferior and less authentically muslim (some of which i think has been internalized by bangladeshis from what i have seen, but that’s a different topic), so i think that cools a bit of the fellow feeling that might otherwise exist.

as an example my father knows urdu because he went to university in islamabad. but he has gotten into arguments with pakistanis who asserted that knowledge of urdu made you a better muslim. his position was that only arabic has a privilege as a religious language in sunni islam, and so he rejected any assertion of greater islamic identity of urdu over bengali. some bangladeshi muslims engage in a more general project of “reforming” their islam to be more in line with arab practices, and i think some of this has to do with a perception that they are shucking off mughali-urdu cultural domination. e.g., switching from hanafi to shafi school of sharia as one of my uncles did in the 1980s (he did this after having spent time in the arab world and feeling that arab islam was more authentic than the traditions which were local to bangaldesh).

i’m elaborating on this level of pedantic detail because of the subjective nature of identity and affinity means that sometimes you have to be cautious about projecting particular loyalties onto other people base on your image of what their loyalties are. you know your own values and position much better than you do of others.

there are complex cultural, historical and racial dynamics when it comes to how non-arab muslims relate to arabs. i have talked to persian friends of mine about the bizarre contradictions in the persian attitude toward arabs, which exhibits both attitudes of cultural and racial superiority along with the due deference given to arab civilization and causes because of their sincere muslim faith. the holy sites of islam are mostly in the lands of the arabs, so naturally muslims the world over will have care. similarly, the roman catholic church has always had a religious interest in jerusalem, egypt and syria because three of the ancient originally patriarchates were located here. and naturally when the buddhas of bamyan were about to be destroyed many buddhist nations in southeast asia and east asian made diplomatic pleas to stop the taliban (and the local hazara shia who opposed the action were at the time being genocided by the pashtun sunnis).

in any case, just a long way of saying that it was natural that taz’s post would rub people the wrong way because not everyone shares her presuppositions. there doesn’t seem to be a “reasonable” and “objective” way to talk about a lot of these social & political issues which are exceedingly complex because group norms and values are so critical in how we see things.

Understandable that Arabs or Jews would think that way. But what is amazing is that desi-muslims would be more concerned about the 6 million Palestinians rather than the 200million people in Af-Pak that Obama talked about!

1) there is no “even-handed” and objective perspective. subjectivity is the name of the game, and your values and associations color everything. evangelical christians care about about persecution of christians in china, and american buddhists and new agers care a lot about persecution of tibetan buddhists (the two groups have allied several times on the general issue of chinese persecution of religious groups). this doesn’t mean that one or the other is ‘objectively’ more offensive to human rights, but people care more about people who are more like them.

2) when i’ve expressed a general disinterest in the outcome of, or the details of, the israeli-palestinian issue to jewish or muslim acquaintances and friends a common reaction is outrage that i could not care about the “the most important international issue of the day.” of course the two groups had very different foci (i.e., the oppression of arabs vs. the hypothetical destruction of the jewish state).

This comment is the kind of thing that you would find on pajamas media. Or Fox and friends.

I find it offensive, that some of you sitting on your high horses out here in the West feel that its fair for you to judge what happens in Saudi Arabia having never lived there or possibly been there.

For the person who said boycott Hajj, its a religious obligation has nothing to do with the country’s policy. If you think its helping the regime than it really isnt, all the money that comes in goes back into building better, safer infrastructure and housing for the pilgrims when they come.

I am an expat who has lived most of my adult life there, and I am not arab. I have a fair share of friends who are non arab, non muslim who were born and raised in that country who love and cherish their memories of Saudi Arabia. So if you think its not possible to live there or it may possibly kill or suffocate you, just know that there are over a couple 1000 expat kids who have freely called or call that home.

The point I am trying to make here is that there are many of us who live abroad and adapt to each country we move on to, and love it for its good and its bad.

Lastly, if you must have an opinion at least be balanced, and look up the statistics on how safe it is to live in Middle Eastern countries (GCC specifically)relative to Western nations. Murder/Rape/Crime rate.

yes, terror/terrorism was not used even once in the speech. we now call it “violent extremism” – why use one word when you can use two? it’s indeed interesting that terrorism was the dog that did not quite bark, unlike Obama’s dear friend god who barked a lot – “be conscious of god and speak always the truth”, “all of us share common aspirations – to love our god”, “when the holy land of three great faiths is the place of peace that god intended it to be”, “and the rights of all god’s children are respected”, “a place for all of the children of abraham to mingle peacefully”, “we know that is god’s vision”, “and may god’s peace be upon you”. isn’t there a single surviving atheist in the “muslim world” who deserves some nuance?

“But that same principle must apply to Muslim perceptions of America. Just as Muslims do not fit a crude stereotype, America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire.”

” …That does not mean we should ignore sources of tension. Indeed, it suggests the opposite: we must face these tensions squarely. And so in that spirit, let me speak as clearly and plainly as I can about some specific issues that I believe we must finally confront together. The first issue that we have to confront is violent extremism in all of its forms. In Ankara, I made clear that America is not – and never will be – at war with Islam. We will, however, relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security. Because we reject the same thing that people of all faiths reject: the killing of innocent men, women, and children. And it is my first duty as President to protect the American people.”

“…Around the world, the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries, and anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust. Tomorrow, I will visit Buchenwald, which was part of a network of camps where Jews were enslaved, tortured, shot and gassed to death by the Third Reich. Six million Jews were killed – more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. Denying that fact is baseless, ignorant, and hateful. Threatening Israel with destruction – or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews – is deeply wrong, and only serves to evoke in the minds of Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve.”

“…For decades, there has been a stalemate: two peoples with legitimate aspirations, each with a painful history that makes compromise elusive. It is easy to point fingers – for Palestinians to point to the displacement brought by Israel’s founding, and for Israelis to point to the constant hostility and attacks throughout its history from within its borders as well as beyond. But if we see this conflict only from one side or the other, then we will be blind to the truth: the only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security.”

“…Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and does not succeed. For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights. It was a peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the center of America’s founding. This same story can be told by people from South Africa to South Asia; from Eastern Europe to Indonesia. It’s a story with a simple truth: that violence is a dead end. It is a sign of neither courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That is not how moral authority is claimed; that is how it is surrendered. Now is the time for Palestinians to focus on what they can build. The Palestinian Authority must develop its capacity to govern, with institutions that serve the needs of its people. Hamas does have support among some Palestinians, but they also have responsibilities. To play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations, and to unify the Palestinian people, Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, and recognize Israel’s right to exist. Finally, the Arab States must recognize that the Arab Peace Initiative was an important beginning, but not the end of their responsibilities. The Arab-Israeli conflict should no longer be used to distract the people of Arab nations from other problems. Instead, it must be a cause for action to help the Palestinian people develop the institutions that will sustain their state; to recognize Israel’s legitimacy; and to choose progress over a self-defeating focus on the past. America will align our policies with those who pursue peace, and say in public what we say in private to Israelis and Palestinians and Arabs. We cannot impose peace. But privately, many Muslims recognize that Israel will not go away. Likewise, many Israelis recognize the need for a Palestinian state. It is time for us to act on what everyone knows to be true.”

“Rather than remain trapped in the past, I have made it clear to Iran’s leaders and people that my country is prepared to move forward. The question, now, is not what Iran is against, but rather what future it wants to build.”

And other parts in his speech expecting something in back in return, which I am going to leave to you to read. What are your thoughts on what Obama expects of Muslims? You were silent about that.

Obama been in office for a little over 4 months but he already done 2 speeches in the Muslim world in Turkey and Egypt which has him saying that America/Israel are to blame for all of the problems in the muslim world. Since he was in Egypt I wonder if he thought about saying sorry to the father of Mohamed Atta for the United States being to blame for the death of his son.

This post is the kind of thing that you would find on CAIR website.