UNCLASH

CLASH: Musharraf is/is not The Man

2006-10-01T13:23:00.000-07:00

This week Pakistan’s President Pervez Musharraf has been aggressively hitting the U.S. talk show circuit to promote his new memoirs, aptly titled In the Line of Fire. His book promotion tour dovetails with an official visit to the United States, both for the U.N. General Assembly and talks with President Bush and Afghan President Karzai. I saw Musharraf’s spirited performance on Charlie Rose for the full hour, and even – to my surprise – on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart.

The book, which I haven’t read yet, covers familiar ground regarding Pakistan’s role in the War on Terror since 9/11, as well as Musharraf’s path to power and his role as a leading bulwark against Islamic extremism. Musharraf prides himself on being an ‘enlightened moderate” in a Muslim World dim with extremism, intolerance, and violence. In his interviews, Musharraf promotes Pakistan’s role in the War on Terror as much as his own contribution to the battle with extremism, in the service of Pakistan’s national goals.

In Pakistan, Musharraf’s book tour is raising eyebrows. Already facing mounting domestic opposition, the tour adds fuel to the fire of Musharraf’s critics. First, the idea of a head of state writing memoirs while in office is unconventional, if not completely wrongheaded. It opens the writer to all kinds of criticism and rebuttal, and reduces his options to negotiate policies in the here and now. Second, Pakistanis rightly question how their president, who is deeply involved with all matters of statecraft, found the time to author or even direct the ghost writing of his memoirs. Third, many figures mentioned in the book contest Musharraf’s portrayal of historical events. The rebuttals coming from Armitage to Vajpayee are an embarrassment to the president, but worse, to the office which he holds. Even the New York Times questioned the accuracy of minor claims and facts in the book. Fourth, Pakistanis are outraged that the President has used a taxpayer-funded state visit to the United States to promote his book, which is a means of personal promotion and enrichment as much as it is public diplomacy. The president intends to donate part of the proceeds of the book to charity, possibly through a yet-to-be created foundation managed by his wife, for yet-to-be-determined causes (women’s causes and poverty alleviation were mentioned). Whatever the final destination of the proceeds, the allocation and intended distribution is not transparent, which legitimates the cause for concern. Even the Pakistani taxman has an interest in seeing how the book income is declared.

But the far bigger problem, in my view, is Musharraf’s positioning as the Man of the Hour in the Muslim world. At a CFR press event, Musharraf was received with a standing ovation and heaps of praise. He highlighted the importance of his book in no uncertain terms:

"My autobiography is my contribution to the history of our era. It is also of course my own story, a life where I look back and see the contours of an eventful, turbulent path with both luck and destiny playing leading roles….My autobiography is a window into contemporary Pakistan and my role in reshaping it…I want the world to know the truth…What happens in Pakistan socially, politically and economically in the coming years, will not only help decide the outcome of the global war on terror, but will also shape what the future will look like for both Islam and the West. (source: Dawn Newspaper)

Over the years, the West has needed Muslim heroes who could be tough on communism / backwardness / extremism / fundamentalism / terror. Perhaps this pattern originates from the colonial era, when the British sought local Big Men around the empire through whom they could rule indirectly. In recent times, many a Muslim leader has stepped forward to be the West’s Man, from the Shah of Iran (against backwardness and for Israel) to Saddam Hussain (against Khomeinism) to Zia-ul- Haq (against communism). Few of these men succeeded, either in executing good policies or winning favor at home. In closely associating policy successes with the destiny of One Man, one hero, Western policymakers and opinion leaders have consistently bet on bad horses. Worse, they have often done so at the expense of local institutional development, democratization, and even basic good governance. For example, we know that the same extremists Musharraf now confronts in Pakistan are a direct result of the Islamization of that country directed by Gen Zia in the 1980s, who at that time was The Man against Communism. Each time, policymakers have traded off one evil in favor of another, which comes back to haunt them with dire consequences.

We need to break out of the convenient cycle of backing individuals rather than principles. This is not just a matter of idealism, but of cold, hard realistic calculus. Getting it wrong, as we learned with post-Pahlavi Iran, has profound consequences (e.g. inheriting all the Big Men’s enemies). The fact that Musharraf, one person, can credibly claim to be a critical factor in the War on Terror and the clash of civilizations is a testament to how poorly the West’s avowed push for democratization. Again, it’s a case of receive now, pay later. This is precisely the historic posture that the Bush administration claims to have abandoned.

In some ways, Musharraf has become Pakistan’s Gorbachev. He may be onto a good thing, but lacks the power or legitimacy to execute ambitious, transformative goals. He is celebrated in London and New York, but increasingly disliked, even hated, at home. Therefore, Western policymakers should be cautious.We should do less to celebrate and pump up the Man, and more to work for The Cause, even if it means some painful trade-offs and long term investments in Muslim societies and their future. For Pakistan, it means less Musharraf and more democracy. We need less Big Men and more of the hard work building authentic, sustainable reform in many parts of the Muslim world. There is no one magic bullet, despite what this administration believes about democratization. There are a lot of cumulative, re-inforcing investments that need to be made. And there is no one magic Man, no matter how capable, who can do the job. Not even Musharraf, the Muslim world’s latest man of the Hour.

MEDIA: Wallace vs. Ahmadinejad

2006-08-16T00:47:00.000-07:00

It's been a long time since I last posted - another weak start to my nth attempt at a blogging career. Still, so much has gone on over the past few months that I wanted to take stock of my own thoughts (nobody reads this blog anyway!).

This time, I'll try a different blogging approach. Rather than lengthy essay style posts, I'll try to post more frequently, but publish just short, bite-sized chunks so I can keep track of my own mind.

A lot has happened since my last post, including:

Iraq's steady descent into a worsening civil war, and the U.S. intelligentsia coming to terms with the magnitude of the policy failures and disaster on the ground in Iraq.
Increasing tension between India and Pakistan since the Mumbai bombings.
A recent, major terrorist plot unfoiled in Pakistan and the UK, with another disturbing sign of home grown terrorism in the UK.
A growing appreciation of the worsening Sunni-Shia divide in the Muslim world, and concerns about a Shia revival centred around Iran as the new regional superpower.
Growing discussion and chest-thumping in the U.S. vis-a-vis Iran, with an increasing sense that America might have to once again reach for its trusty hammer to impose its will on the Middle East.
As I predicted in March (see previous posts), in May TIME magazine named our friend Wafa Sultan as one of the 100 most influential people in the entire WORLD, further elevating her status in the West. The height of silliness, but not a surprise.
And last but not least, another Arab-Israeli war ending in military stalemate and causing considerable death and destruction, 90% of which in Lebanon.

Not bad for a few months worth of news, and certainly a lot for me to chomp on over the coming weeks and months. Today, I just want to focus on a small topic which got me quite animated: Mike Wallace's interview of President Ahmadinejad of Iran (broken into parts and viewable on YouTube).

I watched Wallace's entire interview on 60 minutes just by coincidence. I was absolutely STUNNED by Wallace's condescending, arrogant, and insanely disrespectful behavior toward Ahmadinejad, and by extension toward all Iranian people. Beyond just common sense, was this guy aware that he was a guest in Iran? Some of the more memorable snippets from the interview:

Wallace told the President, "Cmon, C'mon, you're perfectly able to handle this question"
Wallace demanded that the President answer a question with a "yes" or "no" answer, unsatisfied with the President's responses
Wallace asked the President about the contents of a note that was passed to him by his aide, totally disrespecting the President's privilege of confidential communication with his staff (the note could have been about anything - an earthquake, a national emergency, another appointment, a dispatch, whatever, but it was NONE of Wallace's business)
and on and on - watch for yourselves.

I was amazed by the exchange on many levels. First, that I have never seen any Western journalist, let alone an American one, interview his own leaders with this confrontational, condescending, and disrespectful style. Bush and company get the kid gloves treatment from US reporters. Second, Wallace's choice of interview style. There are many ways to conduct tough interviews, but they can be conducted firmly and respectfully. BBC journalists Tim Sebastian and Jeremy Paxton generally follow this firm-but-polite template, occasionally really giving elected British leaders a hard time. Christiane Amanpour once interviewed President Khatami and had a very civilized, rich exchange with him that asked tough questions at times, but was always professional and courteous. Third, the total lack of appropriateness. Regardless of Ahmadinejad's views and policies, Wallace disrespected not just the man, but the office he holds, his country, and his people. As a non-Iranian, I even felt offended.

Let's imagine for a moment that an Iranian or Arab journalist had the opportunity for an extensive 1:1 interview with President Bush. Not satisfied with his answers (say, on Iraq, Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, Lebanon, democratization and the like), he said, "C'mon, c'mon, you can answer this" or "just give me a yes or no answer" or "hey, what was that note about that your staffer just handed you?" Such an interview would be totally unthinkable, and Americans would be right to feel outraged and totally insulted by the foreign journalist's approach. Fox News and their pundits would go nuts. But of course, when it comes to an American taking such an approach with a foreign head of government, it's totally acceptable. It didn't even raise any eyebrows in the West. Even Colbert and Stewart (to my chagrin) fell silent.

The reason this little exchange is important is two-fold. First, it shows that Americans like Wallace are totally insensitive and clueless in their dialogue with the Middle East. The message is: "we don't like you (you're "Evil," after all), and we don't even have to accord you the minimum respect your office or place in the world would suggest." More importantly, the exchange confirms the pattern which Muslims already view Western policy and leaders as it pertains to their part of the world. Any Muslim watching that interview, let alone an Iranian, comes away with the following conclusions: "Americans don't respect us, our culture, or our history (in Iran's case, over 5,000 years of history). They don't even treat our leaders with any kind of respect, certainly they don't care about our people on the street being blown up in Baghdad or Beirut. They talk down to us, and dictate how we should behave. They put us on the defensive, and demand our compliance to their world view, policy agenda, and interests. On this basis, how can we have a dialogue of civilizations, or trust Western intentions in our part of the world?"

What kind of reconciliation or understanding is possible, when the Mike Wallaces of the world stomp around foreign countries reinforcing every Muslim stereotype of the arrogant, culturally insensitive, and condescending American know-it-all? At a time when East-West relations are at an all-time low, we can thank Mike Wallace for furthering the cause of mutual distrust and animosity. Just the public diplomacy America needs in the Middle East. Good job, Mr. Wallace.

CLASH: Wafa Sultan (Part7/7)

2006-03-11T22:16:00.000-08:00

Part 7: Thanks, but No Thanks

Sultan may indeed turn the Muslim world upside down if demagogically-inspired protests like we saw in the recent Danish Cartoon Affair are ignited, but her discourse will land nowhere. Her ignorant, outsider perspective as a former Muslim and now apostate, coupled with her confrontational style will not contribute to the advance of the Islamic World, but will only advance her own career, book sales, and celebrity in the West. She told the Times, “I believe our people are hostages to our own beliefs and teachings…Knowledge has released me from this backward thinking. Somebody has to help free the Muslim people from these wrong beliefs." Oh, those poor Muslims need us to liberate them (sounds familiar), and Mrs. Sultan is the woman of the hour.

The MEMRI clip shows Sultan, a minute after voluntarily and quite dramatically declaring, “I am not a Muslim,” telling her fellow Al-Jazeera guest, a cleric, that her beliefs are “personal matters that do not concern you.” But yet she flaunts her beliefs to claim that she is at once a “fellow Muslim” seeking reform, and a “secular human being” whose rationality transcends the backwardness of religiosity. Her beliefs are not personal at all; she has made them a public issue and revels in her enlightenment compared to the unfree Muslims clinging to "wrong beliefs." She demands that everyone listen to her diatribe against Islamic beliefs and respect her beliefs, while at the same time insisting to the Times that the Muslims are enslaved by beliefs that are simply "wrong." From this confused starting point, she cannot enrich the debate within Islam, or between the Western and Islamic worlds. She does not offer a logical point of departure for any kind of reasonable, respectful debate.

The Muslim World will ultimately change from within, on its own terms and according to its own timetable. There is certainly a long list of problems that could and should be improved, ranging from human rights to women’s rights, from governance to education and economic modernization. I don't dispute that at all - no society is perfect, and at the present time serious, existential debates might be needed. Muslims should debate controversial topics as well as negotiate the tricky balance between religion and state in a way that best suits them (kudos to al-Jazeera for even entertaining the misguided Mrs. Sultan, for the sake of debate). Violent extremism, which represents few Muslims but has hijacked the Western perception of the entire civilization, needs to be confronted.

But the main issues facing the Islamic World are issues of societal performance that are not wholly determined by Islamic culture or theology. Culture may play some role, just as Max Weber argued that Western European economic progress was driven by the Protestant Work Ethic. But culture is not deterministic. Today, we see productive, modern societies that are Protestant and Catholic, Confucian and Islamic. Muslims should improve their situation in the world, just like anyone else. But the Muslim World doesn’t need the New York Times, Fox News, or Condoleezza Rice to tell them how and what to reform, just as America doesn’t need Muslim talking heads to tell it how to reform health care, address inner city poverty, consume and borrow less (of everything, especially oil), achieve racial harmony, or restore social institutions like the family. The Muslim World certainly does not need the condescending, know-it-all Mrs. Wafa Sultan, recent psychology graduate and former Muslim, to tell it what to do, how to change, and whom to emulate. She will not stimulate debate and progress, but rather stoke resentment and cause offence in the Muslim World.

It’s like the mother who tells her child to clean up his dirty room. The child may recognize the mess and may even want to clean it up, but as soon as the mother commands it, he will resist the whole idea. But mothers are mothers, and they usually get their way because they are bound to their children by authority, but also by love, nurture, and of course biology. Muslims largely recognize their own mess. They may blame too much of it on the West, and not enough on themselves. The West sees this same mess, and blames too much of it on Muslims and even on the faith of Islam itself, rather than taking stock of its own past and present contributions to the mess. But in the case of Wafa Sultan, former Muslim not bound by faith, compassion, or even rational argument to her Muslim audience, the Muslim World should simply turn to her and say, “Mrs. Sultan, you’re not my mother.”

CLASH: Wafa Sultan (Part 6/7)

2006-03-11T22:11:00.000-08:00

Part 6: Celebrity Apostate

There are many Muslims, Jews, Christians, and Hindus who once believed in the religion of their parents, but gave up those beliefs to become non-practicing, agnostic, atheist, or converts to other faiths. This happens every day. Mrs. Sultan’s status as a former Muslim is not unique by any means. In LA, Iranian former Muslims are as common as BMWs. And that status, by itself, shouldn’t qualify Sultan as a great social critic, philosopher or contributor to the debate about the “Muslim Problem.” Her opinions and ideas do not earn her any special respectability based on their intrinsic quality. Many Western observers repeatedly charge that the world of Islam is backward, violent, reactionary, unintellectual, unfree, oppressed, undemocratic, unenlightened. There’s nothing new here! What is new is that these charges were pronounced, in Arabic, by a former Muslim who is now an atheist. That may make the comments more intriguing from a publicity point of view, but they certainly don’t add any intellectual weight to the discussion.

Western observers love the Sultan story because Sultan’s message of condescending finger-wagging toward Islam is familiar and comfortable “truthiness.” It’s reassuring for Westerners to think to themselves, “Hey, it’s not just us that think you Muslims are backward, barbaric, and need reform. Look at this Wafa lady (whom I had never heard of until 3 weeks ago). She’s ONE OF YOU, who is saying the SAME THING about you guys. Don’t you see how RIGHT we are?” The New York Times, MEMRI, et al. tell us that Sultan is a courageous hero, a force to be reckoned with and admired. She is famous for criticizing Islam as an ostensible insider, just as Paris Hilton is famous for being an ostensible celebrity.

You’ll see more Western newspapers, networks, and commentators celebrating Sultan. I guarantee it - just watch. The media will position her as an influential INSIDER, one of THEM (and a free-thinking, educated woman no less – and we just know that most of those poor Muslim women are illiterate and locked up at home), who has bravely come forward and repeated the trite Western sound bites about the need to reform Islam and the Muslim World. To the West, Sultan is one of THEM that talks like one of US. She’s a convert to the widely held “truthiness” that constitutes the Western (mis)perception of the Muslim world.

The West regards Muslims with suspicion, but loves “self-hating” and former Muslims. Americans and Europeans will take every opportunity to toast Muslims who have supposedly seen the light and repudiated the Muslims beliefs, culture, and civilizational heritage that have been holding them back from reason and enlightenment. The apostates are upheld as brave champions because they challenge the Muslim World, live in fear and danger of extremist attack, and neatly match the Western pre-disposed views about the backwardness and barbarity of Islam and its followers. Sultan is just the latest celebrity apostate (again, I’m using the Oxford Dictionary definition) in a line of former Muslims like Salman Rushdie and Bangladeshi author Taslima Nasreen (who has won 21 international awards for her secular humanity and courage against the barbarous Muslim hordes). The New York Times publishes a front page, Saturday Profile on Mrs. Sultan, the MEMRI video is speading like wildfire, and non-Muslims are heaping on the praise about her courage, rationality, and oratory skills. The American Jewish Council has already rushed out Mrs. Sultan’s invitation to a conference in Israel, where presumably Mrs. Sultan, the Syrian-American psychologist, can lecture the Jewish audience about what’s wrong with Islam.

Sultan adds some bravado of her own: she is working on a book that will, she claims in the Times, “turn the Islamic world upside down.” Just think, three weeks ago, this recently graduated, LA-based psychologist (who has not even completed her residency), who to my knowledge has not published a word in English, and who doesn’t appear to have any formal qualifications in history, Islamic theology, jurisprudence, political science, or philosophy, will turn the Muslim World upside down. Such is the intellectual force of her contribution!

CLASH: Wafa Sultan (Part 5/7)

2006-03-11T22:04:00.000-08:00

Part 5: Are Muslims Just Whiners?

Maybe Sultan thinks that Muslims are just a bunch of whiners, or that the Muslim sense of victimhood and self-pity is exaggerated. But maybe it’s because several Muslim populations are living under foreign, non-Muslim military occupation, whereas Muslim militaries are not occupying non-Muslim populations. It’s just a fact. I agree that Muslims shouldn’t cop out and blame all their numerous problems on the Evil Other, but it’s equally unfair to dismiss opposition to military occupation, as in Kashmir, Palestine, Iraq, or Chechnya, as “crying and yelling.” Isn’t the crying and yelling, in the absence of economic or military power, understandable? Are Palestinians supposed to cheer when watching their homes bulldozed and olive groves decimated, or when their movements are curtailed by Israeli security checkpoints? Even President Bush commented that he could understand the Iraqi resistance, saying “If I were being occupied, I wouldn’t like it either.” Whining and yelling is a human response to injustice, not just a Muslim response.

Mrs. Sultan might have more credibility if she read about the history of Palestine, regardless of “whose” history she reads (generally, victors write history, which is why Palestinians are often frustrated that their tragedy is a footnote of history). To say that the Jewish people have achieved their status in the world solely through their scholarship and work belies 50 years of violent struggle in Palestine. Jewish terrorism / freedom fighting in Palestine is well documented in the years preceding the creation of Israel in 1948. The Irgun and Stern Gang carried out bombings and assassinations from 1931 to 1948 to unseat the British from Palestine and forcefully suppress Arab rebellions against Jewish settlement and immigration. These groups were also implicated in the 1948 massacre at Deir Yassin , but their commanders were not punished. Instead, these commanders - Begin and Shamir - eventually became Prime Ministers of Israel.

The Jewish State, which officially claims to represent all Jews everywhere (including the diaspora), was not created and expanded by books and journal articles, but by forced settlement, guns, tanks, and fighter jets. No one in Israel would deny that the survival and territorial expansion of Israel is no small part due to its military prowess. And I don’t know of any military conflict without death, destruction, and victims on all sides. Even today’s illegal construction of Jewish settlements and the Separation Wall (euphemistically called the Security Fence) in the Occupied Territories are possible due to Israeli military superiority over Palestinians, not due to Jewish “work and scholarship.” Israeli soldiers patrolling the West Bank are not writing poetry and doing science experiments on their tours of duty. They are there to maintain order, control the Palestinian population, and help to achieve Israel’s political, territorial, and demographic objectives. It is not the Muslims who need to wake up to this reality – Palestinians are living in these conditions every day. It is their reality. It is Mrs. Sultan who needs to awaken to the uncomfortable facts on the ground.

CLASH: Wafa Sultan (Part 4/7)

2006-03-11T21:59:00.000-08:00

Part 4: Muslim Monopoly on Badness?

Digging into Sultan’s comments on the MEMRI clip, there are more curious statements. She appears to quote ahadith (sayings of the Prophet Muhammad) and the Quran freely, but does not quote them properly by attributing the source of the hadith (which usually goes: according to such and such compiler of hadiths, so-and-so once heard the prophet, peace be upon him, say: xyz) or which parts of the Quran she is quoting. I don’t know whether what she was supposedly “quoting” was out of context or even remotely accurate, and since it’s an edited clip, we don’t know the reaction of the Muslim scholars, or if they corrected her quotations. Further, she claims that the Muslims “invented” the clash of civilizations because in their history and theology they differentiate between themselves and non-Muslims (whether they call them non-believers, People of the Book, pagans, Protected People or whatever). This is hardly new – most religious communities identify themselves in contradistinction to the “other”, e.g. Jews and Gentiles. How does this mean that Muslims “started” the Clash of Civilizations?

Elsewhere in the MEMRI clip, Sultan claims that “The Jews have come from the tragedy and forced the world to respect them, with their knowledge, not with their terror; with their work, not with their crying and yelling." Further, she reprimands the supposed Muslim instinct to burn down churches, destroy embassies, and blow things up, contrasting it with Jews once again: “We have not seen a single Jew blow himself up in a German restaurant. We have not seen a single Jew destroy a church. We have not seen a single Jew protest by killing people.” There’s Colbert’s truthiness again. But the argument is hollow.

First, Jews did not resort to terror tactics or attacks against Germans after the War because better avenues were available to obtain some sense of justice (however imperfect) for German atrocities. There was a process whereby the key architects responsible for war crimes and the Holocaust were brought to justice. The Nuremberg tribunal was established in 1945 for this purpose, and rightfully imprisoned or convicted 22 of 24 defendants. Adolf Eichmann, a war criminal who escaped justice at Nuremberg was apprehended in Argentina, tried, and executed in Israel in 1961-62. The German government had paid the State of Israel and Holocaust survivors over EUR 55 billion in reparations by 2000, according to the German Foreign Ministry. Collective Western guilt over the Holocaust probably catalyzed the creation of a Jewish State, which is why Israel was born in 1948, not 1938. There have been many publications and films documenting and commemorating the Holocaust, and there is undoubtedly value in coming to terms with this outrageous monstrosity by ‘crying and yelling’ through the medium of film, documentary, and publishing, or erecting museums and memorials. Human suffering, not least the Holocaust, is always worth crying about.

Furthermore, the idea that extremist Muslims are the only killers, bombers, and arsonists out there is quite incorrect. Extremist Muslims do not have a monopoly on the use of violence. We have seen many arson attacks against mosques in Europe (UK, Holland, France) and the U.S., but these events are not widely covered or condemned in the West. Just do a Google search for “mosque arson attack” if you are curious. In 1969, an Australian Christian severely damaged the Al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem, the third holiest shrine in Islam. We have also seen Jews violate mosques. In 1994, blow up the King Fahd Mosque in Los Angeles (Sultan’s hometown – doesn’t she read the local papers?) and the offices of Arab-American Congressman Darrell Issa. The leader of the JDL committed suicide as a result, and his co-conspirator was sentenced to 20 years in jail for this plot (). In the Occupied Territories, the Palestinian Authority claims many mosques and churches have been violated, damaged, bombed, or bulldozed by the Israeli military.

It’s simply factually wrong for Sultan to condemn Muslim “badness” while extolling Jewish or Western virtue. There’s plenty of badness to go around, and violent extremists on all sides. Just look at Iraq: over 2,300 American soldiers have been killed since the American invasion, along with the often ignored 30,000-90,000 Iraqi deaths, most of whom are civilian (source: ). Americans, Sunnis, Shi’is – no group is without blood or blame. But the original cause of this chaos, the American-led invasion, is now seen as an elective war based on hyped (and now demonstrably false) WMD claims and an impending threat to Western security. Whether killers are Shi’a, Sunni, Christian or Jewish, there’s plenty of badness to go around, both historically and in the present.

Sultan’s depiction of crazed, violent Muslims as the cause of all that is wrong in the world, while Jewish and Western civilizations contribute to humanity with science and scholarship, is a plainly misleading juxtaposition. And, I might add, it’s an intellectual outrage to single out acts of Islamic extremism while totally ignoring non-Muslim acts of violence. Iraq comes to mind, where the U.S. military invasion has directly or indirectly caused the deaths of tens of thousands of people, mostly Iraqi civilians. Organized, military violence still kills people. Victims in Iraq and the West Bank are just as dead as victims of Hamas suicide bombings. Firebombed mosques in Europe and bulldozed homes in Palestine are just no less destroyed than the ransacked Danish and Norwegian embassies in Beirut and Damascus. Violence equals violence. Badness equals badness. The means and justifications are different, but the outcome is the same. There’s plenty of Evil to go around.

CLASH: Wafa Sultan (Part 3/7)

2006-03-11T21:43:00.000-08:00

Part 3: Insider or Outsider?

What did Sultan say? The New York Times wrote that she had “a deep anger and despair about her fellow Muslims” (my italics) quoting her as saying, “I have no choice. I am questioning every single teaching of our holy book” (my italics). The paper went on to add, she “no longer practiced Islam,” implying somehow she was some kind of so-called moderate, liberal Muslim not weighed down by archaic practices and rituals.

I found this all very confusing, because in the MEMRI clip she very clearly said, “I am not a Christian, a Muslim, or a Jew. I am a secular human being. I do not believe in the supernatural, but I respect others' right to believe in it.” So, she defined herself as a non-Muslim, and in fact a person without belief in God (we can safely assume that God qualifies as a supernatural being).

On the one hand, Mrs. Sultan claims the rational superiority of someone who is “a secular human being”, liberated by rational thought and above religions and the supernatural. On the other hand, Mrs. Sultan wants the association with “fellow Muslims” and “our holy book” because she wishes to appear in the West as someone who is critical of Islam from the INSIDE. Unfortunately, Mrs. Sultan’s sleight of hand doesn’t work for me. She cannot claim she is non-Muslim and deny the most basic religious tenet – belief in God – yet claim the Quran is somehow “our holy book” she shares with her “fellow Muslims.” She cannot be both INSIDER and OUTSIDER. On the MEMRI clip she is the outsider lecturing the Muslim clerics about the barbarity of Islamic civilization. To the New York Times, she is the reasonable, non-practicing Muslim who wants to re-examine “our holy book” and help her “fellow Muslims.” It’s totally inconsistent.

To me, Sultan is a person who was raised in Islam but has given up not only the practice but the faith itself. She says herself she is not a Muslim, and there is certainly no such thing as an Atheist Muslim. A Muslim is someone who believes, and by the definition of the word in Arabic, submits to the Will of God. An Atheist denies the existence of God. Based on her own proclamation, Mrs. Sultan is a secular (secular human being) atheist (doesn’t believe in a supernatural being) who was formerly a Muslim. By definition, then, she is an Apostate. I am not using this label as some kind of epithet or juridical opinion, but rather in the way the term is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary: “Apostate: noun, a person who renounces a belief or principle.” Her tone is arrogant and dismissive, and possibly offensive to many Muslims. In the video-clip she says to a Muslim cleric on the show, “Brother, you can believe in stones, as long as you don't throw them at me. You are free to worship whoever you want, but other people's beliefs are not your concern, whether they believe that the Messiah is God, son of Mary, or that Satan is God, son of Mary. Let people have their beliefs.” It sounds catchy, but makes no sense. Telling a Muslim cleric he can believe in stones or that Satan is God if he wants to might be quite offensive to the cleric, because it dismisses his monotheistic, Islamic belief and equates it with the Arabian polytheism and idolatry which it replaced, or even stranger, a hypothetical religion that might hold Satan as God, Son of Mary. Last time I checked, stone worship and Satanism were not major religions. Islam has over a billion adherents. I would have appreciated a more congruent analogy and some modicum of respect for a major belief system. Mrs. Sultan has not only renounced Islam, but may have also forgotten good manners and logical argument. She does not offer a reasoned, fact-based discourse.

CLASH: Wafa Sultan (Part 2/7)

2006-03-11T21:35:00.000-08:00

Part 2: MEMRI Problems

I must say I was intrigued when I first read about Mrs. Sultan, and wanted to approach the uproar with an open mind. I watched the so-called Al-Jazeera debate that is the source of the great stir surrounding Mrs. Sultan (please watch the clip here first, in case you haven’t already). Only I didn’t watch it on Al-Jazeera. The viral video clip is an edited version, translated and hosted by MEMRI, the very official-sounding Middle East Media Research Institute. That is the clip being posted on YouTube and elsewhere, which Western audiences are celebrating. The clip starts and ends abruptly, and seems more like a monologue of Mrs. Sultan than a “debate” of any kind. Her debate opponents barely said a word, except for one cleric calling her a heretic who blasphemed the Quran and the Prophet, and that there was no point rebuking her. This comment was included at the editorial discretion of MEMRI – we have no idea how the debate or discussion actually unfolded from beginning to end.

MEMRI’s involvement in disseminating Sultan’s heroics gave me some pause. I went to MEMRI’s site and couldn’t find any information about the people behind MEMRI or even how to contact the organization. Maybe that’s because it is already widely known that the organization which claims to offer unbiased translations of Arabic, Hebrew, and Farsi media appears to have a distinct pro-Israel agenda. The founder of MEMRI is a former Israeli colonel, Yigal Carmon, with over 22 years experience in military intelligence. In 2002, Brian Whittaker of The Guardian authored an article entitled “Selective MEMRI” – raising doubts as to the objectivity and apolitical claims of MEMRI. You can read that very informed article here, and form your own opinions. Anyway, the upshot of MEMRI’s involvement is a MEMRI-translated, abridged, and edited clip where Mrs. Sultan is the star, talking down the Islamic establishment who have nothing to say in response other than silence and some dismissive “heretic” labeling.

What surprised me about Mrs. Sultan’s MEMRI monologue is the anger and volume of her tone. If you closed your eyes you would think she were addressing The Million Man March, not a TV camera in a small studio. Her tone is not one of discussion, but rather of rehearsed, calculated public oratory. You don’t see these long-winded, high-decibel monologues on Larry King, for example. What I perceived as nothing other than a comprehensive rant covered Islamic civilization, the Prophet Muhammad, the Quran, war and peace, Islam vs. the West, the successes of the Jewish people compared to the failure of Muslims, her personal beliefs and a whole lot more in just a few minutes. It was an impressive coverage of topics in a short amount of time. Some of her comments had the ring of truth for many (or “truthiness” as Stephen Colbert would say), but upon closer examination, many problems arise.

CLASH: Wafa Sultan Affair (Part 1/7)

2006-03-11T21:26:00.000-08:00

Part 1: Wafa Sultan Makes Waves

If you haven’t yet heard of Wafa Sultan, you’re in good company. Nobody really had until a few weeks ago. But today she is on the cover of the New York Times, a new celebrity in the Clash of Civilizations. Until recently, Wafa Sultan was an unknown, 47-year old mother and newly qualified psychologist quietly living in the LA area. She was distinguished only by her lack of distinction. She wrote some articles on an equally undistinguished blog, The Critic (al-Naqed), which seems to be largely a recycler of Daniel Pipes articles (that’s a whole other story). Then her passionate, angry appearance on Al-Jazeera on Feb 21, “confronting” Islamic clerics brought her into the international spotlight. The Times called her an “an international sensation, hailed as a fresh voice of reason by some, and by others as a heretic and infidel who deserves to die.” The story is interesting because it’s a prism through which many of the issues surrounding the so-called Clash of Civilizations can be dissected. Because I am too lazy to condense my thoughts into small bite-sized chunks normally associated with blogs, I am analyzing the Wafa Sultan brouhaha in several parts.

Identity as Operating System

2006-02-23T23:15:00.000-08:00

The purpose of this autobiographical introduction is to make readers aware of my background, and inform their vigilance for my own biases. I am a young Muslim believer of mixed parentage: my father a Pakistani Muslim, and my mother a German of Catholic background. My life has straddled the three regions most embroiled in the War on Terror – the Arab Middle East (Egypt, Saudi Arabia), Western Europe (Greece, Spain, Germany, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom), and the United States.

My identity is complex, and defies easy categorization. I am comfortable with a multi-layered sense of self. Allow me to indulge in an analogy between identity and computing (this won't hurt one bit, I promise). Just as any computer consists of hardware (think Dell, HP, Lenovo), an operating system (OS, think Windows or Linux), and an array of applications (think Word, Excel, Picasa, etc.), my identity can be viewed as a tiered stack of moral logic and experiential training. My operating system, so to speak, is basically Muslim. My view on right and wrong, evil and righteousness, and understanding of this life and the next, are informed heavily by basic Islamic principles and ideals. This operating system is independent of my race, ethnicity, native language, outward appearance, social status, education, profession, or geographically determined cultural heritage.

My “applications” layer, however, is a diverse set of life experiences and intellectual endeavors that embraces East and West, Muslim and non-Muslim. My intellectual training is largely a product of the American system of critical thinking and inquiry, beginning with a basic education at private American schools, and culminating with degrees at Harvard (political science, MBA) and Cambridge (political economy). Prophet Muhammad once told his early Muslim followers to “seek knowledge, even if you have to go to China.” That advice has developed my appetite for ideas and knowledge, regardless of origin. My operating system can sort out which ideas become instructive and useful to me, and which end up in the recycle bin. I can see beauty and ugliness in every society. I am equally moved and saddened by violence and tragedy, whether it affects New York, Baghdad, or Kigali.

But my reflexive affinity, to be fair, belongs to Islam. This is driven by Isaiah Berlin’s idea of cultural affiliation being defined by “never having to explain yourself” to someone of the same culture. Muslims share a collective understanding of their core beliefs, aspirations, and memories to which I largely ascribe. This is the operating system (OS) of Muslim civilization, a common cultural DNA. There are different versions, or flavors, of the Muslim OS (such as Sunni and Shia), just as there are different versions of Microsoft Windows (such as 95, NT, XP). But the core (what programmers call a “code base”) is essentially the same, and it is at this OS level which Muslims identify with each other, and distinguish themselves from others.

It is difficult and often frustrating to debate world affairs, share profound beliefs, or explain perspectives between people with different operating systems. The gulf is too wide to overcome during water cooler conversations at the office or in the halls of university. People with non-Muslim operating systems largely do not understand the Muslim operating system. Few Muslims have made a sincere effort to really understand or appreciate, let alone internalize alternative operating systems, however one defines them (Christian, Western, secular, atheistic, Confucian, Hindu, etc.). Friedman recently argued that Muslims view other faiths through a lens of superiority. He argues that Muslims view Hinduism as God 0.0, Judaism as God 1.0, Christianity as God 2.0, and Islam as God 3.0. While there is some truth to the Muslim perspective of a religious teleology, a sense of religious or moral superiority is hardly unique to the Islamic worldview. Christians, for example, generally believe that it is impossible to attain salvation without accepting Jesus Christ as lord and savior. Judaism is not a universal religion, being particular to a people who have a special covenant with God, and are thus His chosen people. I know of few groups who do not think they are somehow "better" (smarter, richer, more enlightened, more powerful, more righteous, more tolerant, more magnanimous, more "free" etc.) than others.

The Western sense of superiority is most salient in the realm of socio-political organization (which, it is often argued, is a key determinant of its economic progress). Here, the Western view is that the nation-state governed by a liberal, secular democracy based on the sanctity of individual rights represents the end game of human political organization. In this schema, Muslim countries are mainly governed by Politics 1.0 (absolute dictatorships or dynastic rule), Confucian societies by Politics 2.0 (one party states), and Western states by Politics 3.0 (multi-party secular democracies). Of course there are exceptions to this schema, such as Turkey and India. Similarly, adherents of the Washington Consensus economic policies believe in the inherent superiority of free trade (except in agricultural goods and labour, mind you), low government intervention, and laissez-faire liberal capitalism (liberalization, deregulation, privatization etc.). Communism obviously didn't fare so well. Almost every idea, value, or thought system has some aspect of normative judgment and jusxtaposition with other, lesser systems.

I prefer the diverse OS analogy to the teleological perspective offered by Friedman. It’s not a question of 0.0, 1.0, and 2.0, but rather one of Windows, Mac, and Linux. They all operate computer hardware, but they do it in slightly different ways. People can argue which civilization is inherently better, but they are essentially competitive operating systems which aspire to the best job in governing individual human thought and behavior, as well as collective values and institutions.

I believe that is almost impossible for a person to run two operating systems concurrently. People’s outward behavior, how they dress, what they eat or drink (or don’t), and what they believe at a superficial level I define as part of a person’s application layer. The core beliefs and values, their final thoughts before death, and the type of funeral they wish to have are determined by their operating system. Now computer buffs may argue that it is indeed possible to run multiple operating systems on a single computer, for example Windows application software running on a Mac. Why can’t this be true of individuals? I will remind these skeptics that multiple OS layers can only be simulated on a single computer using virtualization software. Virtualization makes an application think it is running on a Windows platform, even though that software really only translates instructions from the Windows application into Mac speak. Furthermore, virtualization slows down computation considerably, and it is a suboptimal arrangement. In the case of a virtualized Mac, when push comes to shove, the Mac always runs the show. In case of a “virtualized” Western Muslim, I would argue that Islam still governs the OS, whether a person carries a French passport, wears a mini-skirt, or knocks back a pint at the pub.

It is possible, however, for an individual to change operating systems. I have met many European or American converts to Islam who clearly possess the Muslim operating system. In addition to adopting the core beliefs of Islam, they identify with and share the collective civilizational memory of Muslims. Moreover, they grieve over Muslim tragedies (such as Srebernica or Sabra and Shatilla) and celebrate Muslim triumphs (e.g. Al-Andalus or the Taj Mahal). Similarly, some Muslim immigrants in the West have abandoned the Muslim operating system in favor of a Western operating system. Many Persian immigrants to the United States, for example, were adversely affected by the Islamic Revolution in Iran and fled the country. As part of their exodus, some have abandoned the Muslim operating system in favor of a Western orientation. Their migration to a new civilizational OS is often totally complete by the second or third generation after immigration.

As a final thought about identity and the idea of civilizational operating systems that govern individuals, I would argue that most operating systems have many things in common in terms of objectives and ouputs. A Macintosh computer can display, network, print, save, and store data, just like a Windows computer can. All humans generally share a concern for life and liberty, love their children, care for their elderly and infirm, and aspire to improve their material welfare. They want to be governed fairly, and hate oppression and injustice. But the trade-offs they make, and the priorities they set in achieving their aspirations, differ. Even if the “what” is quite similar, the “how” matters. Nevertheless, the common humanity that transcends civilizational operating systems is the best hope for a peaceful, progressive future. If this commonality continues to be obfuscated by events or distorted by small cult-like minority groups like Al-Qaeda, or poor policy decisions by powerful Western governments, we will lose this sense of a larger humanity-centric perspective.

So that's me in a nutshell. Remember, deep down I have a Muslim OS. Read on with this fact in mind.

Why Unclash?

2006-02-19T04:21:00.000-08:00

The widening gulf of mistrust between Western and Islamic civilizations, exacerbated by a death cult which both claim as a common enemy, is steadily widening. While Western leaders are careful to discriminate between Al-Qaeda terrorists and adherents of Islam, the War on Terror has caught ordinary people everywhere in the maelstrom of a larger conflict that is difficult to understand at a profound level, and is met with a combination of fear, incomprehension, or apathy.

As someone who straddles both East and West, the so-called Clash of Civilizations / War on Terror / Confrontation of Cultures affects me deeply. At times, it has directly impacted my day-to-day life and the freedoms that I hold dear. It has forced me to reflect on the daily news, the political context for government actions, and the effect of a murky, ill-defined conflict on my own religion, and the societies on both sides of a threatening civilizational divide. In what is essentially a personal effort to process, digest, and make sense of the world around me, I am making this humble contribution to the dialogue between two of the world’s great civilizations. I am not a journalist or author, nor an Islamic scholar, nor a recognized thinker or intellectual. I don’t command an audience of a Bernard Lewis, Michael Scheuer, or Thomas Friedman, nor the following of a Yusuf Qaradawi. I do not represent or speak for anyone other than myself. My observations are largely based on political, social, and cultural ideas and arguments, and limited theological analysis. I hope, nonetheless, that this article stimulates people of both civilizations to look at their own cultures and histories, and toward one another, with more honesty and self-reflection in a sincere effort toward better mutual understanding.

The purpose of this blog is to humbly offer the perspectives of a person who lives and breathes between East and West. My posts will be classified into various (overlapping) categories.

ISLAM 101 posts will aim to shed light on developments within the Muslim world, and help non-Muslims make sense of the "foreignness" of Muslim culture, religion, and society.
MEDIA posts will deal with analysis of media coverage of the confrontation between the Western and Islamic worlds.
CLASH posts will deal with the confrontation between the West and Islam, especially from the perspective of generally held views and assumptions
POLITICS posts will examine the political aspects of the Clash of Civilizations, both in terms of state-to-state interactions and domestic politics
TERRORISM posts will deal with a narrower set of issues specifically related to terrorism, al-Qaeda, and anti-terror policies pursued by both Muslim and Western governments

Instead of confronting one another, the West and Islam first need to confront their own failed ideas and policies that have contributed to the escalation of mutual mistrust. Only then can two great civilizations work together to eliminate a common cancer, and create a foundation for a stable coexistence founded on mutual respect and harmony. It's time to Unclash Civilizations.