Husain, Gualtieri and Maghbouleh

[shouzab_awan]

Atiya Husain's writing allows us to explore the intersectionality of race and religious identity, hinging on the experiences of Muslims in the West. Interestingly enough, her writing explores how even the acceptance of a non-Christian religion, such as Islam, distances those white people from whiteness. This is advanced when these white Muslims choose to take on physical markers that further their otherness. "Physical presentation greatly facilitates this presumed loss, particularly for women, as hijab is a "particularly efficient factor of racialization." This is extremely interesting as it highlights how religious belief and identity can undercut race in a society built on the concept of racism. As we have discussed in class, the discrimination from white people is typically towards anyone who does not align with their white Christian version of the perfect person. This racism towards white Muslims is an ideal example as they should have the same benefits as any other white person, but religion has such a significant impact that is not the case. In a previous class closer to the beginning of the semester, we discussed Islamophobia as racism, and I think this finding cements that concept. However, I do believe that there is still a level of privilege associated with being a white Muslim, as while taking on the physical markers of a Muslim may subject them to racialization, they still, to an extent, benefit from systemic whiteness and can evade the racism that envelopes brown and black Muslims.
 
Husain's study led to other interesting findings, such as the one of Nadeer, an African-American, who, as a black person, was profiled for his race and not his religion, as even though he had a beard, he said, "I don't know that anybody looks at me and sees 'Muslim,' which I think is just an advantage...Until they learn more and say, "Oh, that's why I knew there was something." Husain gathers a theme from similar stories that African-Americans are perceived as black rather than Muslim instead of being both.

Moving on to Gualtieri's work, there is a parallel to be drawn between how Syrians welcomed whiteness and how the Moriscos did. In the case of the Moriscos, as we have discussed, they publicly adopted Christianity due to the pressure from authorities while privately adhering to their Islamic beliefs. There are apparent differences between the two groups regarding how they approached societal acceptance; in both cases, they adopted the dominant religion and norms. Being able to identify as white would allow Syrians to be much more privileged in Western society. However, there was a split among the judges who would sometimes allow Syrians to identify as members of the white race, such as Judge Newman, who "drew on A.H. Keane's The World of People, to conclude that Syrians were part of the Caucasian or white race."

In contrast, others like Judge Henry Smith refused this notion, identifying a difference between Caucasians and whites. In his opinion, "the ultimate test of whiteness was one of geography, and the deciding factor was whether or not the applicant was from Europe or descendant of a European immigrant." Later on in the reading, there is a difference between being white and being the right kind of white, as Tom Ellis, a Syrian, was accepted as white. Yet, the immigration officers argued that he was not the right kind of white (being of European heritage). However, in his case, he was granted citizenship given that the statute did not mention Europeans exclusively, and otherwise, he was "exactly the type of person Congress had intended to become a citizen."

From there, there is the blatant desire for separation from the Syrian Society for National Defense, as they became worried that rulings excluding them from citizenship would render them "no better than blacks and Mongolians." So their argument became more about separating themselves racially and even religiously as they did not want to "jeopardize their standing by aligning them with Muslims."

Maghbouleh's writing expresses the experiences of Iranians in America, which shows even more exclusion despite being labelled as "white/ Caucasian" by law. The situation was worsened by public media coverage of images such as "American flags on fire in the street of Tehran," which prompted a rise against Iranians living in the United States, calling for their deportation. Maghbouleh goes on to develop the impact on Iranian students, calling it a "mass public browning," which I think is a perfect way to put it. This is a continuation of the theme mentioned at the start of my discussion post, where discrimination from the West stems from anything that is beyond the normal, and even being associated with a group that loses the support of public opinion can cause great harm.