Bill Clinton Draws Flak for 'Trumpish' Comments on American Muslims
'Unfortunately, he framed his arguments within the same parameters of the Islamophobic discourse employed by Trump which treats Muslims as unwelcome foreigners.'
Former President Bill Clinton's speech at the Democratic National Convention (DNC) on Tuesday night, largely focused on humanizing his wife, is drawing criticism for its characterization of American Muslims.
"If you're a Muslim and you love America and freedom and you hate terror, stay here and help us win and make a future together, we want you," Clinton said toward the end of his address.
But as Peter Beinart, contributing editor for The Atlantic, wrote late Tuesday night: "The problem is in the assumption. American Muslims should be viewed exactly the same way other Americans are. If they commit crimes, then they should be prosecuted, just like other Americans. But they should not have to prove that they 'love America and freedom' and 'hate terror' to 'stay here.' Their value as Americans is inherent, not instrumental. Their role as Americans is not to 'help us win' the 'war on terror.'"
Beinart continued, "Whether Clinton meant to or not, he lapsed into Trumpism: the implication that Muslims are a class apart, deserving of special scrutiny and surveillance, guilty of terrorist sympathies until proven innocent."
Dr. Muqtedar Khan, an associate professor in the Department of Political Science and International Relations at the University of Delaware, responded to Clinton's remarks in a piece for The Islamic Monthly:
No doubt he intended to convey to Muslims, and the rest of America, the contrast between Donald Trump's exclusivist, neofascist attitude towards Muslims, and Hillary Clinton's progressive, supportive and inclusive stance towards all minorities including American Muslims, but the one line that mentioned Muslims may have fallen far too short, and even dangerous in repeating the same patterns as other Islamophobes during this election cycle.
The former wishes to ban us, and the latter...well this may be the issue I'm struggling with. The message stated by Clinton is we, American Muslims, can stay here if we love America and freedom and hate terrorism. How generous!
The implication of his statement is that American Muslims are trying to leave, and he is urging us to stay. And yet, American Muslims have been here for centuries now. Many of the slaves who built this country were Muslims forced to hide or leave their faith. Secondly, why the conditions? And why only while speaking about Muslims would he mention the word terror?
[...] The problem with the semantics of what Clinton said in his speech is that it borrows the Islamophobic assumptions that have plagued American political arena in the past several months. This was a good opportunity for Bill to push back against it and shift the conversation. Unfortunately, he framed his arguments within the same parameters of the Islamophobic discourse employed by Trump which treats Muslims as unwelcome foreigners.
"Let's hope that Hillary Clinton can include Muslims in her speech tomorrow that does not fall in to the same semantic traps as others during this election season," Khan wrote.
Users on Twitter expressed similar reservations:
And Ahmed Rehab, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)'s Chicago branch, wrote on Facebook:
I appreciate Bill Clinton affirming that Muslims oppose terrorism. We do. We do. Thank you. But I do dream of a day when Muslims are mentioned outside of the context of terrorism and in the contexts that we live in daily. For example in a discussion about health care. Muslims are 1% of the US population and 10% of its doctors. That is a 1000% overrepresentation. If one had to "stereotype" Muslims based on lop-sided data, it would be that "Muslims are doctors."
Meanwhile, MSNBC host Rachel Maddow said she found Clinton's opening lines "shocking and weird."
"A+ for the end of the speech," she said. "But I think the beginning of the speech was a controversial way to start, honestly. Talking about 'the girl,' 'a girl.' Leading with this long story about him being attracted to an unnamed girl."
"Building her whole political story for the whole first half of the speech around her marriage to him," Maddow continued. "Unless there were worries that this was going to be too feminist a convention, that was not a feminist way to start. But the end of the speech was really good."
Urgent. It's never been this bad.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission from the outset was simple. To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It’s never been this bad out there. And it’s never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed and doing some of its best and most important work, the threats we face are intensifying. Right now, with just two days to go in our Spring Campaign, we're falling short of our make-or-break goal. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Can you make a gift right now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? There is no backup plan or rainy day fund. There is only you. —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Former President Bill Clinton's speech at the Democratic National Convention (DNC) on Tuesday night, largely focused on humanizing his wife, is drawing criticism for its characterization of American Muslims.
"If you're a Muslim and you love America and freedom and you hate terror, stay here and help us win and make a future together, we want you," Clinton said toward the end of his address.
But as Peter Beinart, contributing editor for The Atlantic, wrote late Tuesday night: "The problem is in the assumption. American Muslims should be viewed exactly the same way other Americans are. If they commit crimes, then they should be prosecuted, just like other Americans. But they should not have to prove that they 'love America and freedom' and 'hate terror' to 'stay here.' Their value as Americans is inherent, not instrumental. Their role as Americans is not to 'help us win' the 'war on terror.'"
Beinart continued, "Whether Clinton meant to or not, he lapsed into Trumpism: the implication that Muslims are a class apart, deserving of special scrutiny and surveillance, guilty of terrorist sympathies until proven innocent."
Dr. Muqtedar Khan, an associate professor in the Department of Political Science and International Relations at the University of Delaware, responded to Clinton's remarks in a piece for The Islamic Monthly:
No doubt he intended to convey to Muslims, and the rest of America, the contrast between Donald Trump's exclusivist, neofascist attitude towards Muslims, and Hillary Clinton's progressive, supportive and inclusive stance towards all minorities including American Muslims, but the one line that mentioned Muslims may have fallen far too short, and even dangerous in repeating the same patterns as other Islamophobes during this election cycle.
The former wishes to ban us, and the latter...well this may be the issue I'm struggling with. The message stated by Clinton is we, American Muslims, can stay here if we love America and freedom and hate terrorism. How generous!
The implication of his statement is that American Muslims are trying to leave, and he is urging us to stay. And yet, American Muslims have been here for centuries now. Many of the slaves who built this country were Muslims forced to hide or leave their faith. Secondly, why the conditions? And why only while speaking about Muslims would he mention the word terror?
[...] The problem with the semantics of what Clinton said in his speech is that it borrows the Islamophobic assumptions that have plagued American political arena in the past several months. This was a good opportunity for Bill to push back against it and shift the conversation. Unfortunately, he framed his arguments within the same parameters of the Islamophobic discourse employed by Trump which treats Muslims as unwelcome foreigners.
"Let's hope that Hillary Clinton can include Muslims in her speech tomorrow that does not fall in to the same semantic traps as others during this election season," Khan wrote.
Users on Twitter expressed similar reservations:
And Ahmed Rehab, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)'s Chicago branch, wrote on Facebook:
I appreciate Bill Clinton affirming that Muslims oppose terrorism. We do. We do. Thank you. But I do dream of a day when Muslims are mentioned outside of the context of terrorism and in the contexts that we live in daily. For example in a discussion about health care. Muslims are 1% of the US population and 10% of its doctors. That is a 1000% overrepresentation. If one had to "stereotype" Muslims based on lop-sided data, it would be that "Muslims are doctors."
Meanwhile, MSNBC host Rachel Maddow said she found Clinton's opening lines "shocking and weird."
"A+ for the end of the speech," she said. "But I think the beginning of the speech was a controversial way to start, honestly. Talking about 'the girl,' 'a girl.' Leading with this long story about him being attracted to an unnamed girl."
"Building her whole political story for the whole first half of the speech around her marriage to him," Maddow continued. "Unless there were worries that this was going to be too feminist a convention, that was not a feminist way to start. But the end of the speech was really good."
Former President Bill Clinton's speech at the Democratic National Convention (DNC) on Tuesday night, largely focused on humanizing his wife, is drawing criticism for its characterization of American Muslims.
"If you're a Muslim and you love America and freedom and you hate terror, stay here and help us win and make a future together, we want you," Clinton said toward the end of his address.
But as Peter Beinart, contributing editor for The Atlantic, wrote late Tuesday night: "The problem is in the assumption. American Muslims should be viewed exactly the same way other Americans are. If they commit crimes, then they should be prosecuted, just like other Americans. But they should not have to prove that they 'love America and freedom' and 'hate terror' to 'stay here.' Their value as Americans is inherent, not instrumental. Their role as Americans is not to 'help us win' the 'war on terror.'"
Beinart continued, "Whether Clinton meant to or not, he lapsed into Trumpism: the implication that Muslims are a class apart, deserving of special scrutiny and surveillance, guilty of terrorist sympathies until proven innocent."
Dr. Muqtedar Khan, an associate professor in the Department of Political Science and International Relations at the University of Delaware, responded to Clinton's remarks in a piece for The Islamic Monthly:
No doubt he intended to convey to Muslims, and the rest of America, the contrast between Donald Trump's exclusivist, neofascist attitude towards Muslims, and Hillary Clinton's progressive, supportive and inclusive stance towards all minorities including American Muslims, but the one line that mentioned Muslims may have fallen far too short, and even dangerous in repeating the same patterns as other Islamophobes during this election cycle.
The former wishes to ban us, and the latter...well this may be the issue I'm struggling with. The message stated by Clinton is we, American Muslims, can stay here if we love America and freedom and hate terrorism. How generous!
The implication of his statement is that American Muslims are trying to leave, and he is urging us to stay. And yet, American Muslims have been here for centuries now. Many of the slaves who built this country were Muslims forced to hide or leave their faith. Secondly, why the conditions? And why only while speaking about Muslims would he mention the word terror?
[...] The problem with the semantics of what Clinton said in his speech is that it borrows the Islamophobic assumptions that have plagued American political arena in the past several months. This was a good opportunity for Bill to push back against it and shift the conversation. Unfortunately, he framed his arguments within the same parameters of the Islamophobic discourse employed by Trump which treats Muslims as unwelcome foreigners.
"Let's hope that Hillary Clinton can include Muslims in her speech tomorrow that does not fall in to the same semantic traps as others during this election season," Khan wrote.
Users on Twitter expressed similar reservations:
And Ahmed Rehab, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)'s Chicago branch, wrote on Facebook:
I appreciate Bill Clinton affirming that Muslims oppose terrorism. We do. We do. Thank you. But I do dream of a day when Muslims are mentioned outside of the context of terrorism and in the contexts that we live in daily. For example in a discussion about health care. Muslims are 1% of the US population and 10% of its doctors. That is a 1000% overrepresentation. If one had to "stereotype" Muslims based on lop-sided data, it would be that "Muslims are doctors."
Meanwhile, MSNBC host Rachel Maddow said she found Clinton's opening lines "shocking and weird."
"A+ for the end of the speech," she said. "But I think the beginning of the speech was a controversial way to start, honestly. Talking about 'the girl,' 'a girl.' Leading with this long story about him being attracted to an unnamed girl."
"Building her whole political story for the whole first half of the speech around her marriage to him," Maddow continued. "Unless there were worries that this was going to be too feminist a convention, that was not a feminist way to start. But the end of the speech was really good."