| By Dorna Mohaghegh - Dec 11th, 2007 at 3:43 am EST |
| Also listed in: Campus Progress Blog |
I'm very much a believer in the idea of the Islamic Reformation as described by Reza Aslan in his book No God but God. He contends that Islam is in the midst of an internal struggle. On one side is the fundamentalist minority as epitomized by al-qaeda, the Taliban, and the Saudi Regime - hardliners whose goal is to go back in time and enforce a rigid 6th century interpretation of the Quran. On the other side is the silent majority, moderate Muslims who stay quiet and take a more modern view of their religion.
It's the struggle between these two sides that, according to Aslan, manifests itself in the form of terrorist violence across the world. If this be the case, then why do terrorists attack the west? Because in doing so, they hope to encourage the west to take harder stances against Islamic countries, and to make Muslims across the globe feel further isolated and therefore more sympathetic to a fundamentalist movement that seems to be gaining ground thereby winning the ideological battle and bringing their interpretations to full fruition.
Whether or not you agree with this view is a different issue from that which I'm trying to address, and I'm not going to take the time to fully defend Aslan's thesis (although I agree with it). For that read the book. But if you do accept it, it demonstrates the problem the Muslim world and the Middle East in particular face: the fundamnetalists have western supported regimes and extensive terrorist organizations to enforce their viewpoints. Who or what do the moderate Muslims have?
Think about it. If you're a fundamentalist Muslim, you've got places you can go to find people who think like you. And those people have means to help you further your ideology, to the great misfortune of the rest of the world at large and moderate Muslims in particular.
No such support system exists for moderates; no strong or powerful moderate Muslim governments, no international organizations that have any substantive powers (to my knowledge - I would love to be proven wrong if anybody knows something I don't), and only greater fear and further isolation on the horizon thanks to increasingly ideological rehtoric being spouted from the US.
So what's the solution? What can be provided to moderate Muslims so that they can voice their views without fear? Because they have legitimate fear - the retaliation of hardline governments who don't allow ideological dissent, and the threat of targeted terrorist attacks against themselves. What bulwarks can they be given, and who can and/or should provide them?
Until these questions can be legitimately answered, I don't believe that any long term viable solution for the struggles of the region or the religion can be found.
Good night boys and girls.
!
Comments are closed for this post.
"As liberal and moderate Muslims generally do not have the organizational tools to effectively counter the radicals, the creation of moderate Muslim networks would provide moderates with a platform to amplify their message, as well as some protection from extremists. It would also provide them a measure of protection from their own governments, which sometimes repress moderates because they provide a more acceptable alternative to authoritarian rule than do the extremists.
Since moderates lack the resources to create these networks themselves, their creation may require an external catalyst. Some argue that the United States, as a majority non-Muslim country, cannot perform this role. Indeed, the obstacles to effectively influencing socio-political developments abroad should not be underestimated. Nevertheless, with considerable experience fostering networks of people committed to free and democratic ideas dating back to the Cold War, the United States has a critical role to play in leveling the playing field for moderates.
...
...A key finding of this report—which one of our reviewers notes is particularly important—is that the U.S. government and its allies need, but thus far have failed, to develop clear criteria for partnerships with authentic moderates. The net result, already visible, is the discouragement of truly moderate Muslims."
For instance, I think we should stop lending CAIR credibility and legitimacy, and actively look to moderate Muslim groups as more appropriate dialogue partners. As has been discussed elsewhere, it's not even clear that CAIR has real support in the Muslim American community beyond a certain fringe.
Second, as we've covered before, what's the alternative group out there?
Just because the moderate muslims don't get press doesn't mean they don't exist. We should engage them more in the United State and Cair should not be invited to corridors of power.
Simple fact of life: there would have to be some organizational structure in place to facilitate that, and no such structure currently exists. If you had read my previous discussions with Joe on the matter (in a previous post on CAIR from back in June), you would have realized is what was meant by asking "what's the alternative?" is that, given the current political climate in the US, it's tough to imagine an alternative group being formed or promoted to the same prominence of CAIR. As I wrote then:
""Presumably, a lot of people who are sympatico with CAIR are cheering them on but keeping their distance. Likewise, a lot of people would like to see an alternative group, but the startup costs of establishing such an alternative would entail high personal prices and risks.""