Author: Daniel Pipes
Publication: Jerusalem Post
Date: November 26, 2003
If militant Islam is the problem
and moderate Islam is the solution, as I often argue, how does one differentiate
between these two forms of Islam?
It's a tough question, especially
as concerns Muslims who live in Western countries. To understand just how
tough it is, consider the case of Abdurahman Alamoudi, a prominent American
figure associated with 16 Muslim organizations.
FBI spokesman Bill Carter described
one of those, the American Muslim Council, as "the most mainstream Muslim
group in the United States." The Defense Department entrusted two of them
(the Islamic Society of North America and the American Muslim Armed Forces
and Veterans Council) to vet Islamic chaplains for the armed forces. The
State Department thought so highly of Alamoudi, it six times hired him
and sent him on all-expenses-paid trips to majority-Muslim countries to
carry what it called "a message of religious tolerance." Alamoudi's admirers
have publicly hailed him as a "moderate," a "liberal Muslim," and someone
known "for his charitable support of battered women and a free health clinic."
But this image of moderation collapsed
recently when an Alamoudi-endorsed chaplain was arrested and charged with
mishandling classified material; when Alamoudi himself was arrested on
charges of illegal commerce with Libya; and when Alamoudi's Palm Pilot
was found to contain contact information on seven men designated by the
United States government as global terrorists.
Distinguishing between real and
phony moderation, obviously, is not a job for amateurs like US government
officials.
The best way to discern moderation
is by delving into the record - public and private, Internet and print,
domestic and foreign - of an individual or institution. Such research is
most productive with intellectuals, activists and imams, all of whom have
a paper trail. With others, who lack a public record, it is necessary to
ask questions. These need to be specific, as vague inquiries ("Is Islam
a religion of peace?" "Do you condemn terrorism?") have little value, depending
as they do on definitions (of peace, terrorism).
Useful questions might include:
* Violence: Do you condone or condemn
the Palestinians, Chechens, and Kashmiris who give up their lives to kill
enemy civilians? Will you condemn by name as terrorist groups such organizations
as Abu Sayyaf, Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, Groupe Islamique Armée, Hamas,
Harakat ul-Mujahidin, Hizbullah, Islamic Jihad, Jaish-e-Mohammed, Lashkar-e-Tayyiba,
and al-Qaida?
* Modernity: Should Muslim women
have equal rights with men (for example, in inheritance shares or court
testimony)? Is jihad, meaning a form of warfare, acceptable in today's
world? Do you accept the validity of other religions? Do Muslims have anything
to learn from the West?
* Secularism: Should non-Muslims
enjoy completely equal civil rights with Muslims? May Muslims convert to
other religions? May Muslim women marry non-Muslim men? Do you accept the
laws of a majority non-Muslim government and unreservedly pledge allegiance
to that government? Should the state impose religious observance, such
as banning food service during Ramadan? When Islamic customs conflict with
secular laws (e.g., covering the face for drivers' license pictures), which
should give way?
* Islamic pluralism: Are Sufis and
Shi'ites fully legitimate Muslims? Do you see Muslims who disagree with
you as having fallen into unbelief? Is takfir (condemning fellow Muslims
with whom one has disagreements as unbelievers) an acceptable practice?
* Self-criticism: Do you accept
the legitimacy of scholarly inquiry into the origins of Islam? Who was
responsible for the 9/11 suicide hijackings?
* Defense against militant Islam:
Do you accept enhanced security measures to fight militant Islam, even
if this means extra scrutiny of yourself (for example, at airline security)?
Do you agree that institutions accused of funding terrorism should be shut
down, or do you see this a symptom of bias?
* Goals in the West: Do you accept
that Western countries are majority-Christian and secular or do you seek
to transform them into majority-Muslim countries ruled by Islamic law?
It is ideal if these questions are
posed publicly - in the media or in front of an audience - thereby reducing
the scope for dissimulation.
No single reply establishes a militant
Islamic disposition (plenty of non-Muslim Europeans believe the Bush administration
itself carried out the 9/11 attacks); and pretence is always a possibility,
but these questions offer a good start to the vexing issue of separating
enemy from friend.
