Arar was never charged. In fact, the judicial commission concluded that he was innocent and had been wrongly labeled an “Islamic terrorist” by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, which had casually passed on the unproven allegation to the US. Canadian officials then tried to cover up their complicity through a smear campaign of media leaks and misleading memos designed to prevent Arar’s return to Canada.24 Ottawa was forced to formally apologize to Arar and settle with him for $10 million.

While no compensation could ever right the wrong done to him, other Muslims falsely accused of terrorism, in any jurisdiction, are rarely vindicated. “Once you are labeled a terrorism suspect, you are stuck with that label for the rest of your life — worse than being called a Communist in the McCarthy era,” Paul Cavaluzzo, the lead lawyer for the commission, told me.

ISLAMOPHOBIA

The tragedy of 9/11 divided the world into two broad camps. One insisted that it was all about Islam. The other claimed that it was about nineteen criminals. The former succeeded in tarring not only all Muslims with the terrorist brush but Islam as well. This was clearly designed to divert attention away from American foreign policies, a tactic that did not fool Kofi Annan, then secretary-general of the United Nations. Speaking to a UN conference on Islamophobia in New York in December 2004, he cited the uprisings in Palestine, Chechnya and elsewhere, and added pointedly, “We should remember that these are political reactions — disagreements with specific policies. All too often, they are mistaken for an Islamic reaction against Western values.”25

Islam-bashing bears all the symptoms of racism. It holds up the most marginal and fanatical Muslims, totaling a few thousand, as representatives of all 1.3 billion Muslims. It expects every Muslim to explain or apologize for the actions of the few: “What do you have to say about 9/11?” or about some other terrorist horror, as if he or she is personally responsible for it.

The tendency to see all Muslims as one prompts the media and even governments to demand, “Who speaks for Muslims?” The answer is that, as with people of other faiths, many groups and organizations do, depending on religious, social or political requirements. The range of Muslim views is, arguably, wider. Muslims come from different regions, races, nations, ethnicities and cultures, speak different languages, follow strict or liberal interpretations of Islam, or don’t follow any at all, though they do consider themselves Muslim. While a diversity of voices in other religious communities is considered normal, in Muslims it is seen as exasperating proof of divisiveness and disarray.

Another oft-asked question is, “Where are the moderate Muslims?” These are usually defined as those who not only condemn terrorism, but who also agreed with the policies of Bush and his allies, and confirmed prevailing anti-Muslim prejudices. This handful of Muslims are often courted and quoted by the media. The surest way for a Muslim to get news coverage is to attack fellow Muslims or, better still, Islam. He or she — ideally someone alienated from Islam due to some personal experience, which is then presented as symptomatic of the Muslim norm — is portrayed as a “reformer,” courageous enough to speak out. Some may be. But most are positioning themselves as such for a new niche market.