Alert Mutineer Giri hit up my wall on Facebook*, and wrote a scorching screed about something he witnessed while watching last night’s Colbert Report.
Apparently, Hussein Ibish, the Executive Director of The Hala Foundation For Arab-American Leadership was a guest on the show; he was invited on to address the whole “Is Obama actually a Muslim?”-question, or, as Colbear facetiously put it, whether Obama is “a secret Muslim”. Ibish was ostensibly offended enough by Colbear’s jocular query to utter the following stupidity to his host, as if this would clear everything up:
“If someone says…that you…are a secret Hindu or perhaps a child molestor…are we to take that as…”
I beg your pardon? Sorry, Mr. Ibish, perhaps you should beg ours?
To his credit, Colbert forcefully replied, “I’ll take care of this one” to his loudly booing audience. He went on to proclaim:
“I find it offensive, that you are implying that all Hindus are child molestors. Your words, Sir. Your words.”
I find it offensive, too. What kind of “spokesperson” is so utterly reckless, or barring that, terrible at hiding their biases? Ibish went on what is arguably an influential television program and offered a dysphemistic metaphor, when he should have– for his sake, his cause’s sake, hell, everyone’s sake– been far more diplomatic. I know that there are people who will watch this clip and think that it’s not a big deal. Well, call me a saffron-balled, pseudo-secular friend of Moor Nam, but I was and am offended. If this situation weren’t egregious enough, this paragon of E.D.-ship didn’t seem concerned at all at how his remarks actually sounded, outside of his head. Ibish has decried hate against the Muslim community in the U.S., after 9/11. He of all people should understand the power of insinuation, as well as the need to combat ignorance, vs. stoking it. Shame on him.
::
*Might be a first, in terms of tip submission 😉
“and I’m not even 1/100th as important as Ibish is!”
You’re a million times more important.
A Million and one, Hindu Styly
I think you guys are over reacting a tad. I don’t believe that in anyway was his insinuation.
yes, it was not his finest moment. but come on, these things happen in the blink of an eye and when its on tv the stakes are artificially high — and colbert did twist that sentence around. hussein ibish is a decent chap, a gentleman who would never soil hindu’s on purpose. i was fortunate to have spent many, many hours with him during my undegrad years and i may have learned more about injustice in the world from him and his cohorts than from my professors. let’s not vilify an incredibly hard-working, erudite man who has made it his life’s mission to fight racism and discrimination. this man does not need approval ratings to keep his job.
You also need to take it in context of the general muslim (the region that extends from Pakistan to Morocco) and middle east view of Indians. They look down on Indians. And they hate the religion. Like that Iranian guy who the other day laughed–c’mon how can god have ten arms. So I think it was easy for Ibish to juxtapose Hindu with child molester. There is no easy way to spin this. We all know English quite well. I’m with Anna.
Can someone please reproduce the rest of the sentence/exchange and/or directly link the transcript? Because I can’t see the clip either, and would like to know where he was going with that sentence.
I’m surprized that even Ibish, in his own defence upthread, would stick to grammatical rules, instead of providing some additional context.
I doubt this would have passed muster – “Suppose I accuse you of being a secret Jew or a loan shark.”
What if someone else said the same thing but replaced hindu with muslim.
There a good chance that right now there would be riots all over the world, and the person who said this would have some muslim leader, who would be telling his followers to kill him.
I disagree Anna. It was very clear to me that Ibish was not linking Hinduism (A) and child molestation (B) in the Colbert clip. And, Razib, I don’t see how the distinction between the exclusive .vs. inclusive disjunction is relevant. Neither of those forms implies that A=B. Maybe some people use the word “or” differently than I do. And even if Ibish’s comment on this thread was not apologetic and was a little condescending (but can you blame him when responding to a post with an accusatory title with his name in it?), it was a very clear explanation of what he meant. I suspect that the vast majority of Colbert show viewers did not infer that he meant A=B.
If there was an existing smear that linked hindus to c-m’s there might be something to be offended about. But since there isn’t I don’t think there’s anything to worry about.
60 · ashvin said
Oh, I think you can blame him… That sort of condescension is not a necessary response to such an accusation, nor is it common in my experience. While I am not particularly upset about his remarks on the Colbert Report, I must admit his post here was lacking in the tact and grace departments.
No big deal! That guy, who wrote “Gang Leader For a Day” was on the same show and I think he is Hindu and I think if a he did find something offensive about it he would of spoken about it with this guy by now.
Anyway, has anyone notice that there seem’s to be at least 1 Indian a week on “The Colbert Show”?
Correction: “The Colbert Report”
If Ibish had told Colbert ‘you are a secret child molester’ – how would that pan out. In any case ‘much ado about nothing’.
Here is a funny ass interview with author Shashi Tharoor on “The Colbert Report”
http://www.comedycentral.com/colbertreport/videos.jhtml?episodeId=162606
Mr. Ibish, I am glad the vanity alert of your name on Google Alerts worked. And thank you for your kind lesson in grammar and sentence parsing – the last refuge of the “sadly misunderstood”.
As for the tortured hair splitting on incorrect inferences, I wonder where all that was on this interview where you go so far as to put yourself through an interaction with Michelle Malkin, and even manage to stay polite (something you seem unable to do here), while decrying the fact that some people might infer that some photos might have been taken purely because the subjects looked Muslim, when there was absolutely no implication of that kind by either the people who took the photograph or the FBI agency that released them, and that there should have been clarifications made to assure people that this wasn’t the case.
And maybe you should stop to consider the question that multiple people have asked: would you have said “secret Jew” instead?
61 · ShallowThinker said
That assumes Venkatesh identifies as a Hindu, was watching the telecast, or was paying attention during the statement. The gasps in the audience say enough, and had Ibish inserted any Abrahamic religion instead of Hindu, the consternation would have been greater. It may have been literally correct, but the placement conflates the two.
Ibish is a man who worries that people “look Muslim” in photographs used by the government in terrorism posters, a person who finds such things problematic needs to tread much more carefully when he speaks in the public sphere.
Further, the comment had been preceded by a discussion of the Kristof column making the point that whether Obama was a Muslim shouldn’t matter in the least. In that context, I reall don’t know what to make of a sentence that mentions being a secret Hindu and a child molester in the same breath. Or maybe Ibish is such an open-minded gentleman that he thinks the latter should not matter either.
46 · A N N A said
Anna, I know you have seen this video but for the sake of other esteemed, ignorant SM readers 🙂 Namak Halal: Amitabh Bachchan tries to talk English
67 · Rahul said
Well then he’s a hypocrite as he gives himself the benefit of the doubt that he denies the FBI in respect to their terrorism posters. What irks me most is a person in his position throwing out a sentence like that. If you’re protecting a religion from defamation by going after all insults, obvious or not, why do this yourself?
much ado about a comedy central fake news/talk show segment ..
sheez ….
Razib: a few clarifications first:
(hey, you know that not all muslims are brown, and not all brown people are muslim, but here’s a situation where conflating really muddies the issue more appropriately for argumentation). No, of course not, I wasn’t attempting to conflate the two when I made the comment about the politician, just illustrating that substantial minorities can have racist opinions.
Regarding the “all Muslims” comment, I was actually referring to JGhandi– not that s/he actually said that verbatim, and I didn’t mean to imply that with the quotes.
But in any case, I agree with you that it’s important for Muslims to claim the negative baggage that comes with being Muslim today. I totally agree that we have a serious extremist problem within the community, and that it needs to be dealt with, that we need more moderate voices taking leadership roles. That’s all well and good. But it becomes incredibly frustrating for those moderate voices when they constantly have to apologize or take responsibility for the extremists in their communities– I don’t think I have a responsibility to apologize to America for Osama bin Laden, and I find it offensive that people would assume I sympathize with any part of his (or other extremist) agendas.
Quoting a number about British-Muslims is really problematic, because again, you’re assuming that Muslims are a monolith. The Muslim-British population has had a vastly different experience with the Western world then the Muslim-American population. Britain has had a serious and long-standing problems with racism against both Muslim communities. British-Muslim youth are more alienated, more frustrated, and much more detached from Britishhood then Muslim-Americans are from Americanhood. And I do take issue with your statement that American-Muslims are more influenced by Muslim-majority countries, I just don’t think that’s true. Perhaps first generation immigrants, but that’s true for all first-generationers.
I also think it’s kinda problematic to associate Muslims and Islam as only a religion of immigrants, especially since a) the whole fastest growing religion thing, and b) the most prominent Muslim-American politicians have been born and raised in America, ie. Keith Ellison and Andre Carson who won the special election in Indiana. Maybe I should suck it up and not be offended if people think they can reasonably assume I think converts should be killed, being an immigrant with my loyalties obviously ELSEWHERE, but people like Ellison?
P.S. I’m not saying you made that assumption, I’m talking generally.
Manju: LOL.
Oh my God, ANNA. Can’t believe you are quoting thalaivar!!!! Love that sentence you wrote! Next you will be singing petta-rap and dancing dappan koothu.
now that is a dance form that has not got its due.
Wow…it seems we’ve finally crossed the line and see “the Daily Show” and “The Colbert Report” as actual news now….and not the comedic displays of mockery that they are…..
Leaders and influential folks are always saying things they should not on those shows…some times on their own, other times after being “led” to a punch line by the hosts. What’s more…the shows pick these “guests” for this type of effect.
Sure, they guy made some bad choices in what he said….but look at EVERYONE else those shows interview….as someone born and raised in the South, I’ve seen more than my share of biggoted, racist idiots, many from my home state, on those shows spouting the typical crap they always do…
Kudos to Anna for sticking up for Hindus, though!
Hindus rock!
74 · Pragathi said
Ibish has been Ferraro-ed!
For quite a while now (at least since indecision 2000) “the Daily Show” and “The Colbert Report” (which came much later) have done a much better job of presenting actual news than most “actual” news shows. The celebrity interviews are not fake — the atmosphere is nonsensical, and so is the reaction of the hosts, but many of the questions are much more incisive than anything the celebrities face on most other shows.
Mc Cain, Huckabee, Gore, Clinton, Pervez Musharaff,Spitzer, anyone who who is someone comes on and though they might joke a lot they certainly watch their words on their show
74 · Pragathi said
Methinks you need to audit yourself. Perhaps invite the IRS as well? Sambrani.
I think we can all surmise, using Ibish’s methodology, that his being ‘kind of an agnostic’ should not be construed as cover for pederast advocacy but really as a sign of an ardent and rational reformer of Islam. It all makes sense. A thousand points of light coming together.
Just FYI. Here’s my transcript of the exchange:
Ibish : But listen I’m extremely grateful to Obama for kindo of cleaning up my name because for the past 10 years or 15 years it’s been I have to explain my name is Hussein like “Saddam Hussein” and now I get to say my name is Hussein like Barack Obama.
SC: And I’m sure he thanks you for that.
Ibish: It’s great. I truly appreciate it he’s doing me a great service.
SC: Let me tell you why I think it shouldn’t matter that Barack Hussein Obama is a Muslim.
Ibish: Which he isn’t by the way.
SC: I’m hearing that he is lately.
Ibish: No he isn’t actually. He says he’s not, there’s no reason to doubt it.
SC: Ok, I misspoke. “Secret Muslim”
Ibish: There’s no reason to doubt it. I mean if someone says of you that you are a secret Hindu or, perhaps, a child molester are we to take this on face value ?
[crowd boos/cheers/laughs]
SC: Sir. no no no no. I’ll take care of this one. I find it offensive that you are implying that all Hindus are child molesters.
Ibish: I’m not. Of course I’m not.
SC: You just did. Your words sir, your words sir.
I don’t mean to be dragging this out any longer. But it’s just that I was so surprised to see so many of you (who I’ve come to think of as reasonable people) hear the same thing I was hearing and infer from it things that I find almost impossible to infer.
As a fairly faithful viewer of the Colbert Report, I see it as Colbert (the character) playing his usual comical, anti-logical, self. He draws absurd conclusions from his guests words all the time and it’s hilarious. I thought the crowd was booing because Ibish was accusing the Colbert (the character) of being a c-m and not because they thought Ibish was linking hinduism and c-m.
Oh, and add this last line to the transcript : “Ibish: Not at all. Not true at all.”
So, for the record, as soon as Colbert makes the absurd allegation, Ibish clarifies it not once, but twice.
79 · ashvin said
Thanks for the transcript. It’s clear that Ibish meant no offense. There’s certainly enough ‘reasonable doubt’ to acquit him.
ashvin @ 79,80 — thanks. some of the most sensible people who write on these SM threads, whose comments i follow closely and almost always agree with, have been making peculiar and rather mean interpretations. and ultimately this is generating too much animosity and perpetuating the hate. now that in my book just aint cool. what’s with this obsession of linguistically decoding a flash in the pan comment that just isn’t all that incriminating?
It could have been just a simple Freudian Slip. An unscheduled interview on that Chris Hansen tv show maybe in his future. Now that would be worth watching.
Quoting a number about British-Muslims is really problematic, because again, you’re assuming that Muslims are a monolith. The Muslim-British population has had a vastly different experience with the Western world then the Muslim-American population. Britain has had a serious and long-standing problems with racism against both Muslim communities. British-Muslim youth are more alienated, more frustrated, and much more detached from Britishhood then Muslim-Americans are from Americanhood.
I’m tired of this crap. Sikh’s and hindu’s are in England and they are not having problems that the muslims are having. Blowing things up and druging and raping 15year old girls seems to only be a problem among British muslims in the South Asian community.If England and these other European countries and there culture is so bad, they could alway move somewhere else.
Ashvin, many thanks for transcribing that exchange.
Although you (and Sandeep, Seahawks fan, Vikram, others) argue persuasively why this was ‘just a slip’ – that it’s no big deal, etc (though if it were a ‘Freudian’ slip, Vikram, wouldn’t that damn him even more?) – and although I often like to give people the benefit of doubt, in my overall take on this I agree with Anna.
The Colbert Show may be a high-pressure situation, but spokespersons and polemicists like Ibish ought to have their talking points, perhaps even soundbites, all ready to go, no extempore thinking and no Freudian slips. Anyone could anticipate that he would be asked about Osama and ‘secret Muslim’. The answer should not have included any reference to a ‘secret Other Religion’ – that just opens a can of worms – no matter what other inclusive or exclusive disjunctions or parenthetical dilatory clauses follow. It should not have happened, so yes he embarrassed himself, and he gets no benefit of doubt.
But what I am really surprized by is his own post upthread in his defence. A simple apology, even if only admitting an unfortunate choice of words (which at the least it was) – was what was called for, but he offers a lesson in grammatical structure instead.
As a historical point of fact – accusations of being a ‘secret Hindu’ or ‘secret Jew’ have been made with extremely malign intent and horrible consequences (Goan Inquisition, Spanish Inquisition, etc). Therefore, saying that ‘secret Hindu’ is a ‘benign false claim’ (we would very much like it to be so) is profoundly ahistorical, a mistake that people working to counter present-day ‘malign’ false claims and prejudices should not have made.
ashvin, I made my earlier comment, especially 12, as an exaggeration. However, I do think that Ibish, whose career apparently is about encouraging reasonable discourse and making sure Islam is not poorly perceived (look at the appearance I linked to which was all about the appearance of discrimination), throws in a sentence that was very poorly considered: it is less about the conflation to me, it is primarily about the implication that somehow the fact that somebody is a “secret Hindu” should be an issue (there is a lot of discourse in this country that advocates acceptance of the religions of the book, basically of the vein that people of all religions, be it Islam, Christianity, or Judaism should be accepted – you can do a scan of a variety of political speeches where you will see this: Hinduism, Buddhism, atheism etc. are rarely, if ever, mentioned) but additionally about the fact that he mentioned them together in a construction that is prone to misinterpretation (again, I think the questions multiple people raise about using the term “secret Jew” are relevant).
And to boot, the comment he left here (if it is indeed him) is truly ridiculous in its prickliness, umbrage, and linguistic condescension.
Thanks Seahawks fan, Sandeep, chachaji and Rahul. I agree with you Sandeep.
Btw, Vikram is on your side chachaji (check out his first comment for confirmation that his use of the word Freudian was intentional).
Well, if the issue at hand is now that he shouldn’t have used “secret any-relgion” then I’m glad that we can agree that he was not maligning Hinduism by using the word child-molester in the same sentence.
I do grant you the point that hinduism is constantly left out of discussions about religion and that a hindu in america might feel like a second-class citizen for that reason. I have not lived as a hindu in america and i might not be as sensitive to that fact.
I don’t really want to get into the whole “secret hindu” .vs. “secret Jew” thing (or less offensively “being secretly Jewish” perhaps?). And I’m sure Ibish doesn’t either; the right wing loons give him a hard enough time already. All I’ll say is that with the history of anti-semitism in this country and in the western world in general, it is understandable why “secret hindu” might be seen as a lot more benign than “being secretly jewish”. If the Colbert report was based in Goa, the opposite would perhaps be true.
Peace.
He’s said a lot of damning things in the past and continues to thrive. Damnation is apparently only for those who cannot afford a good legal team.
People who do not watch the Colbert show and do not understand the premise of this Comedy Central show are barking up the wrong tree.
If you are a regular viewer or one familiar with the show will understand that guests are supposed to play along with the absurdities. (Read the transcript posted above to understand this)
Parsing the responses from these interviews is a waste of time and pointless …
88 · Sadaiyappan said
Let’s not even GO THERE
I doubt Mr Ibish has ever watched the show prior to appearing on it. He doesn’t exactly strike me as having a sense of humor having seen some of his other tv appearances. So I doubt he was “in” on Colbert’s dry sense of humor, much less be smart enough to play along with it. He answered Colbert’s just like he does any of his other interviews.
55 · my_dog_jagat said
My dog jagat: I’m a Muslim and I’m INDIAN, from INDIA. And I’m tired of my fellow Hindu countrymen telling me that I’m not really Indian because I’m Muslim. And please learn some geography. The Muslim world extends from Morroco through south eastern Europe, Sub-Saharan Africa, east through Asia to Indonesia and Malaysia. Also, India is the third largest Muslim nation in terms of population. And as far as “the middle east view of Indians” — to contrast to your anecdotal story, my husband is a white skinned Arab. I’m a fairly dark skinned Indian.
Did he deliberately say those words the way the mutinous horde’s insist that he did? Elementary Watson, what would be his motive?
Okay, enough with the handle-switching on the same thread. “Agatha”, as a regular, you should know better.
Sadaiyappan’s trolling and a few other now-deleted gems (try and pick less disgusting handles, thanks) suggest that it’s time to close this thread. Thank you to those who debated civilly and especially to Ashvin, whose comments were a model for how to make a point effectively and respectfully.