Michael has made a number of very interesting points about racism and is generally right. But where I beg to differ is when he stated .." I think that a successful response to al-Qaeda and its affiliates groups' manipulation of Islamic theological texts to justify violence". Sorry Michael, the al -Qaeda is merely following what are being prescribed inside the Quoran. There are 123 verses inside the Quoran that incite Muslims to kill the Jews, the Christians and the non-believers and to dominate the world. Hence, the Al-Qaeda and its affiliates are not manipulating the Quoran. There are merely following the Quoran. Additionally, the Sunnah (Hadiths) compiled by Ishaq (lost)as recompiled by Hisham, Tabari, Al Bukhari and Muslim are awashed by exploits of Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) describing his exploits in wars, raids, beheadings and forced conversion

Hassan, you make some interesting points. What I see as the core argument in Michael Mumisa's article is that there exist a body of Arabic literature from the Historical part which even classical Islamic scholars classified as negative and racist in its depiction of Blacks and that that literature has found a new meaning among a small group of Muslims (either those belonging to al-Qaeda or supportive of its methods and message) since Obama was elected. I have personally checked the Arabic links provided in the article and they are very clear in what they say. I am also aware of some of the fabricated traditions alluded to in the article and how they started in early Islam. Fortunately, there are a few scholarly books available in English that can shed light on the development of such negative representations of Black people in that early literature. I don't think that Muslims are unique in this, we have seen the use of racist texts within some forms of Judaism and some interpretations of Christianity as well in promoting slavery and colonisation. A good book to read is by the Jewish Hebrew scholar David M. Goldenberg's "The Curse of Ham: Race and Slavery in Early Judaism, Christianity, and Islam" (Princeton University Press, 2005).

I think that any attempts to try and disect whether racist views are "eternal" are pointless particularly for those who are the victims of racism. What matters is that such views exist and should be challenged as the article attempts to do.

"Historical context" is a term that has become fashionable these days. We often use it without considering the challenges presented by it as a concept. How and where do we get material for "historical context"?? I think that the historical context of al-Jahiz is given in his very writings. There is no other body of literature outside of al-Jahiz we can read in order to have an idea what historical context he is living in. If Michael Mumisa argues that the first classical scholar to write in response to racist views against Blacks in Abbasid Iraq was al-Jahiz then it means that all that we know about the historical context you mention starts with al-Jahiz!! If al-Jahiz tells us that there is a problem with racial prejudice in his time then we have no choice but to accept his perception unless if we have other evidence also from the same period to prove him wrong. That evidence does not exist. In fact we have more claims to support al-Jahiz from writers of roughly the same period. For example, al-Tabari has a section in his "Universal History" (Tarikh) which deals with the Black rebellion in Abbasid Iraq.

Is the Pope a catholic?

Yes.

Brillant we need more scholars talking about the things that matter

I always thought there was more to al Qaeda! They belong right there with Hitler, the KKK, and other nutters in history! Allah will continue exposing them for what they trully are. Let us just hope and pray that when scholars start to speak out like this they do not become moving targets...

As-salamu alaikum

Please include links to these allegedly racist hadith. You provide references for just about every other claim but not for the crux of your argument.

I recommend that the readers examine the Prophet's (peace be upon him) farewell sermon, where he explicitly describes race relations in Islam.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Farewell_Sermon

"All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over black nor a black has any superiority over white except by piety and good action. Learn that every Muslim is a brother to every Muslim and that the Muslims constitute one brotherhood. Nothing shall be legitimate to a Muslim which belongs to a fellow Muslim unless it was given freely and willingly. Do not, therefore, do injustice to yourselves."

I severely doubt any claim that a "fundamentalist" Islamic group like Al-Qaeda is racist based on their understanding of Islam.

No they are not.They are just terrorist who wants rule the world by doing attacks and chaos.Why could we all be friends and spread love so that we will have a peaceful world?

@BAMBO. I doubt if you are actually African as you claim. There would have been no need to state that for us. You sound like someone who is looking for an opportunity to sneak in hateful statements about people faiths.

You certainly have no clue what you are talking about. "Religion" (whether Islam, Judaism, or Christianity) cannot hate anyone. It people following and interpreting religion who can be hateful. You need to study more about African history to know that religious communities (both within Christianity and Islam) on the continent of Africa have had both positive and negative impacts. I need not give you a long list of examples. Why should I spoon feed you? You should make an effort to read wide.

Very recently during the Rwandan genocide when Hutu Catholic priets were not only inciting violence against Tutsis but actively taking part in it, it was the Hutu followers of what you refer to as the "hateful religion called Islam" who risked their lives protecting and sheltering the victims of the genocides hiding them in their Mosques and houses. See the following news reports:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53018-2002Sep22.html

And also: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0U5AZFsBrc

Today large numbers of Tutsi survivors of the Rwandan genocide are rejecting their former Catholic tradition embracing Islam of the Hutus. See:
"Ten Years After Horror, Rwandans Turn to Islam" By MARC LACEY in The New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/07/international/africa/07RWAN.html?ex=13...

When Rwandan Hutu Muslims were asked why they risked their lives and that of their families to save Tutsi Christians from fellow Tutsi Christians they explain that it is because their faith Islam commands them to protect the weak and to save lives of those in danger.

@Montreal LL. Othello is President over here, and Iago is a Republican.

@ Ohio... Hehehehe! Thanks for explaining. Yes, that makes sense.

Abnawa, you are just confused and confusing us. Say something that makes sense...

Al-Qaeda is racist, Muslims and Christians, are racist, the world is racist. Othello realized it. The darker the skin, the greater the discrimination, but why? Similar considerations apply to eye color. The time that this could be attributed to anglo-saxon colonial prejudice is fading. Is there some biologic reason to value recessive genes? The only survival advantage to light skin, as far as I know, is higher vitamin D levels.

Hey Lumut! You have obviously not read the Holy Bible!! You will be surprised to learn that the Bible is also full of verses which, when read on the surface, appear to be promoting killing and violence against people. In fact, some of the verses were used by followers of the Bible to persecute Jews, other Eastern Christian Orthodox churches, Africans, Muslims, and the list is long.

I agree, a really interesting article.

US right wing commentators are really something aren't they. Obama can't state the truth about al-Qaeda's attacks in African without them turning it on him. The man could end all wars, cure cancer and feed the world and they'd find something to criticise him about. Extraordinary.

I applaud Michael Mumisa’s endeavour to open up an argument against racism in the Muslim world, but I think the specific argument he uses about al-Qaeda is not useful. Surely the point about al-Qaeda is not that they discriminate, but they are indiscriminate- prepared to kill wherever they have the reach. Is racism a core motivating force for al-Qaeda? I don’t believe so.
We should be wary of taking Obama’s propaganda about African cannon fodder at face value – he is after all continuing the war on terror policies (latterly into Somalia) that have produced unprecedented levels of anti-Muslim racism globally.
Without at all underplaying the stupidity of the 1980s South African Islamic organisation that Michael cites, one could argue that the book was probably at root a nasty divisive reflection of the state racism upon which the apartheid system depended upon, one that put Black Africans on the lowest rung.
Where Michael is right is to highlight the racism endemic in the Gulf states, an ideology of supremacy that is at heart not religious but economically based, which is why it encompasses not only Black Africans but those races and ethnicities that make up the migrant labour force in the Middle East, enabling them to be terribly exploited while denying their basic rights.
Michael’s references to classic Islamic scholarship are fascinating, but even here in is useful to bear in mind the historical context. I believe that Al-Jahiz’s argument was that prejudice against Black Africans was not eternal but the product of Arab expansion and ascendency – in other words emanating from a conquering imperialist world-view, a lesson that Obama would do well to bear in mind.