[This
article is a condensed summary of a more elaborate paper on the question.
click
here to view the full version.]
Blaming Islam for the lack of democratic and scientific developments in Muslim
countries is not a new idea but an old enterprise, rooted in the nineteenth
and twentieth century European Orientalism. The late Edward Said succeeded, in
the 1980s, in unmasking Orientalist notions within Western academia and
exposing its false pretense. In his seminal work, Orientalism, Said
demonstrated that Orientalist views of Islam were used to justify the European
colonial ambitions in the Muslim world. Said’s monumental work was pivotal for
the eventual transformation of Middle Eastern studies in Europe and the United
States, as it forced the academia to embrace more scholarly and objective
methods when studying the Muslim world.
Specialists who were intent on presenting Islam and Muslims in a negative
light were unhappy with the positive portrayal, as were those who previously
considered their work to be objective. Many were particularly disturbed by the
rise of authentic voices that presented Islam as a vibrant religion, whose
followers share many of the values and concerns of the West. Led by Princeton
University historian, Bernard Lewis, they attempted to refute Said’s work and
defend Orientalism. But Said’s thesis was profound, and Orientalists never
fully recovered.
The September 11th terrorist attacks on mainland United States gave a new
momentum to the Orientalist spirit. Bernard Lewis once again led the effort to
revive Orientalist notions with the publishing of his 2002 book, What Went
Wrong? Western Impact and Middle Eastern Response. Using subtle arguments, he
indeed placed the blame on Islam and Islamic traditions for the failure of
Middle Eastern societies to develop and modernize like the West. Lewis’ book
has since been followed by an avalanche of similar articles and publications,
mostly by neoconservative journalists and pundits, who reinforce Lewis’ thesis
and even blame Islam for the rise of terrorism as well as the rising tension
between the West and the Muslim world.
The blame game is led today by neoconservative pundits who often present Islam
as the new villain to be confronted by American military power. They have
consistently presented Muslims as incapable of democratic rule, and who
espouse values that are antithetical to world peace and religious tolerance.
To ensure that their views are not challenged by the academic community,
neoconservatives are working hard to undermine academic freedom by
intimidating scholars that present a balanced view of the Middle East. Martin
Kramer’s Ivory Towers on Sand: The Failure of Middle Eastern Studies in
America, a diatribe against Middle East Studies in U.S. universities, and
Daniel Pipes’ Campus Watch, an organization devoted to smearing professors
critical of U.S. foreign policy and Israeli’s treatment of Palestinians, are
two such examples. This campaign is one that aims to intimidate free thinking
on Middle East politics and silence voices that challenge their perspective.
Although many of the anti-Islam writers and neoconservative pundits play on
the fear of the general public by publishing books for a general audience,
others have been done for policymakers under the cover of respected
institutions and think tanks, such as the American Enterprise Institute, the
Heritage Foundation, and the RAND Corporation. Readers should note that this
activity began in 1992 when Defense Department staffers I. Lewis Libby and
Paul Wolfowitz drafted the “Defense Policy Guidance.” and was followed more
discretely and in more depth in a report, “Rebuilding America’s Defenses,”
published in 2000 by the Project for the New American Century.
The neoconservative attitudes of, and approach to, Islam and the Middle East
is well illustrated by a widely publicized report written by Cheryl Benard and
published by the RAND Corporation in late 2003 under the title Civil and
Democratic Islam. Like other neoconservatives, Benard blames the rise of
intolerance, anti-democratic tendencies, and terrorism on all Muslim
individuals and groups that closely adhere to Islamic values and practices.
RAND openly advocates “religion building” as the only way to counter terrorism
and anti-Americanism.
Religion building is an invitation to world powers to reform Islam. It is a
call for reinterpreting Islam and restructuring Muslim societies so as to
counter the rise of militancy in Muslim societies. There is no contention over
the need for reform, and the need for cultural and social reforms in Muslim
societies and communities is well articulated by Muslim intellectuals long
before Islam became the main focus of Western reporters and pundits. Indeed,
reform has been underway for more than a century now, and Muslims have been
engaged in an internal struggle to redefine modern Islamic societies in ways
that aim at empowering civil society and ensuring democratic control.
The contention is rather over how reform is to be achieved, and who is more
capable of leading the reform. The contention is over whether reform can or
should be imposed by outsiders who have little understanding of Muslim
societies and vague sense of the nuances of local cultures, and who call on
world powers to use their political and military clout to impose
sociopolitical design on Muslim societies and communities. A call for external
intervention to restructure the Islamic faith and rebuild Muslim societies is
faulty, and is guilty of misreading Islam and ignoring the sociopolitical
reality that gives rise to global terrorism.
Religion building is perilous, complex, ill-conceived, and practically
untenable. It is a distraction and a blatant attempt to avoid any serious
evaluation of the responsibility of world powers for the radicalization of
Muslim politics. The rise of radical Islam cannot be explained purely on the
level of religious doctrine. Radicalization of Muslim politics is directly
connected to the rise of authoritarian regimes in Muslim societies.
Authoritarian Middle Eastern regimes that suppress open debate and silence
opposition have long enjoyed the support of successive U.S. administrations.
On balance, Islam has been a positive force, rather than a villain to be
arrested and chastised, in the development of the modern Middle East. The
focus on radical groups perpetrating violence in the name of Islam prevents
some analysts from appreciating the centrality of Islamic notions and values
in the progress toward a more open society and vibrant culture. A full
assessment that takes into account the impact of Islamic reform on Muslim
society would illustrate that pessimism toward Islam, reflected in RAND’s
Civil Democratic Islam and similar documents, is unwarranted.
While urging support to one group and opposition to another, neoconservative
pundits remain oblivious to the connection of the various ideological groups
to the larger population in Muslim societies and to one another. The United
States, as an external political actor that is increasingly perceived by
Muslims as biased and uneven-handed, cannot positively affect political
development by rendering support on the basis of artificial religious
preferences. Rather, it must base its positions on intrinsic values and
political principles. In actuality, Benard’s recommendations are nothing but a
recycling of the very old foreign policies that got us where we are today and
that have led to the radicalization of the Middle East.
The United States has tried in the past to put its weight behind Muslim
secularists. The result has been the aggravation of the internal political
balance and the radicalization of the societies where the U.S. took sides on
the basis of superficial criteria and short-term interests. It was the very
approach of siding with modernists against socialists and traditionalists that
got the United States into trouble with the Iranians, the Lebanese, and, most
recently, the Palestinians.
The report is conspicuously silent on the effects of U.S. foreign policy,
which has been frequently characterized by Muslims as one of inconsistency and
double standards – one that supports friendly dictators and corrupt, but
useful, regimes in the Muslim world, while pushing for democratic reform in
Eastern Europe; one that defends human rights in China, but ignores them in
the Middle East; and one that protests Palestinian violence against Israel,
but remains silent in the face of Israeli violence in Palestine. Indeed, the
politicization of Islam and the rise of anti-Americanism are directly linked
to the very efforts that aim at marginalizing Islam and forcing Western
secularism on Muslim society.
RAND’s Civil Democratic Islam is a case in point and illustrates the tendency
to treat Islam as an anomaly to be evaluated on the basis of different
standards than the one used to evaluate Christianity, Judaism, and other world
religions. The author of Civil Democratic Islam has surprisingly chosen
religious identity rather than political values to distinguish foes from
friends. While Civil Democratic Islam declares democracy and civil rights to
be its ostensible goals, it surprisingly stresses religious doctrine and
lifestyle to distinguish democratically oriented Muslims. Benard can hardly
say the same thing about similar practices among Christians and Jews. The
author would not use the same terms to describe Joe Lieberman, the U.S.
senator from Connecticut, who is also a practicing orthodox Jew.
Containing radical groups and ensuring more friendly and cooperative relations
with the Muslim world requires a drastic shift in policy and attitude. Rather
than searching for “lifestyle” criteria to separate friends from foes, the
United States’ position should be based on principles and values. The United
States should support and cooperate with political forces in the Middle East
that uphold the values of freedom, equality, and tolerance of ethnic and
religious diversity, and should embrace those who display commitment to
democracy and the rule of the law, regardless of their religion, religious
doctrines, and their “lifestyle.”
Rather than using lifestyle and religious criteria to assign guilt, the U.S.
government needs to extend its founding principles to followers of all
religions, and ensure that it does not use different standards for dealing
with different religions. The United States must be consistent in pursuing its
support for democracy and human rights, and must ensure that the principles of
right and justice that guide its relations with Europe also apply to its
relations with Muslim societies.
American Muslims can be of great help in fighting terrorism and extremism, and
in bridging the deepening divide between the United States and the Muslim
world. American Muslims have deep understanding of both Muslim and American
cultures, and are well-positioned to help reconcile Islam and the West.
American Muslims have already made remarkable achievements at reconciling
Islamic values with the founding principles of the United States, and have
managed to develop good and important experiences as to how Islamic values can
bear on modern living. They can be instrumental in sharing their experiences
of aligning Islamic values and education with democratic institutions and
practices with coreligionists in Muslim countries. But for that to happen in
more effective ways, American Muslims need to be involved in policy making and
implementation, rather than allowing themselves to be marginalized and
chastised.
In addition to involving American Muslim leaders in consultation on policies
relating to Islam, the Muslim world, and the war on terror, civil society and
government organizations should: (1) engage Muslim leaders who represent
social and political groups that are committed to democracy, instead of
relying completely or exclusively on the views of experts who do not have
firsthand contact or experience with Muslim groups; (2) ensure that U.S.
foreign policy is always respectful of democratic principles and values, the
rule of law, and protection of human rights; (3) apply the same set of
principles and values to all people, regardless of their religious and ethnic
affiliation; (4) withdraw support from authoritarian regimes, and send a clear
message by requiring an open political system and free and fair elections as a
precondition for economic cooperation; (5) have a clear position regarding
Islam, and avoid sending mixed messages to Muslim communities and societies.
*This article is a condensed summary of a more elaborate paper on the question.
For full version of the arguments, please refer to Dr. Safi’s paper at
http://lsinsight.org/articles/Current/ReligionBuilding.htm