Tufts Forum on Islam and Democracies - Smashing!

Tufts Fletcher School of Diplomacy held a forum on April 27, 2007 on "Islam in Democratic Societies: The Struggle Between Radical and Moderate Islam and the Future of Islam in the West." The forum was sponsored by The Jebsen Center for Counter-Terrorism Studies and The Hudson Institute.  I attended the second panel, How Moderate Muslims Can Counter Fundamentalism and How Governments Can Help Them In Their Effort, and it was excellent.  Solomonia was there too, and he has a terrific write-up of both panels.   

Zuhdi Jasser of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy spoke in the second forum, and he was truly  inspiring.  What a straight-up guy!   He has a compelling story and message, and he's a staunch supporter of our country and its freedoms and opportunities. Jasser is critical of many Muslim organizations (CAIR, MPAC, ISNA) which are very vocal and which claim to represent American Muslims, but which actually represent a minority of Muslims.  These organizations are pushing a Wahabi/Salafi agenda that mixes politics, foreign policy and religion.  They're basically political movements working under the cover of religion.  Jasser is equally critical of the American government and media for assuming that the "low hanging fruit" organizations speak for all Muslims (Hello, President Bush!  Hello Senator Kerry!  Yoo-hoo, Mayor Menino and Boston Globe!).  (That's akin to assuming that Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson speak for all Black Americans, which not even close.  Yet Sharpton, Jackson and CAIR get massive coverage in the media.)  Jasser is well-known for his criticism of the Six Flying Imams episode, and of CAIR, which has brought a lawuit against US Airlines, the Metropolitan Airports Commission, and six "John and Jane Does," people on the flight who conveyed their concerns to the flight staff.

I'm working on a transcript of Jasser's presentation, and will post that later on (today, I hope!).

Among all the speakers - Jasser, Nasar Khader of Denmark and Mateen Siddiqui of the Vice President of the Islamic Supreme Council of America - there was unabashed criticism of the dangerous mix of Islamic religion with politics.  They want to see Islamic faith as a private matter for people, with lots of questioning allowed. There was also agreement that major funding of American Islamic organizations comes from Wahabi groups in Saudi Arabia, and that funding comes with strings attached.  (Note to Islamic Society of Boston, why won't you disclose who are the donors from the KSA that are funding your mosque?)  Siddiqui notes that it's a little sad that this conference was taking place at Tufts, and not in a mosque. "Muslims refuse to talk about these things in most mosques."

There is a question of how many Muslims these speakers represent, and I don't know the answer.  I hope it's a lot! How can they successfully wage a war of ideas against the very well-funded, well-coordinated Islamic power elite (CAIR, MAS, MPAC, ISNA, ISB)?  These reformist speakers have superior ideas on their side, including the support of universal human rights, separation of religion and government, personal freedom and liberty, and respect for questioning authority.   We can support these reformers by helping to create new institutions, delegitimizing CAIR-type groups, and being careful to criticize Islamists, not Islam. 

I stole Sol's photo from the event, and I'm stealing his conclusion too:

"All in all it was an inspiring evening. I think it's good for people to know that there are Muslims out there like this -- real reformers who do not repeat bromides and denials but who understand that there's a deep ideological war that needs to be fought."

"At base, what's required overall is that we remain true to our own values. Setting aside those values for the sake of convenience here at home is not only a betrayal of ourselves, but also of real reformers like these. When we ignore the statements of Saudis like Walid Fitaihi (the Jews are the rapists of the sons of Allah...) and continue to engage the ISB as though they speak for Boston's Muslims, we are complicit in empowering the radicals and betraying our well-meaning friends -- friends we may not have met yet -- standing quietly in the shadows. The evening left me more convinced than ever that the ISB needs to lose this suit, and not just lose it, but pay damages. I'm more convinced than ever of the wrong-headedness of engaging and empowering Hamas, dealing with Hizballah, and white-washing the Iranian Mullahs and the Muslim Brotherhood. Those who do so are traitors to friends and are selling the rope with which we shall be hung."

Kudos to Brigadier General (ret.) Russell D. Howard, the Founding Director of the Jebsen Center for Counter-Terrorism studies at The Fletcher School, for bringing this forum to Tufts.

Comments

[A Sceptic but interested Reader]

I'll look forward to reading your transcript of these proceedings; however, I take the strongest possible issue with your own statement that:

"We can support these reformers by...being careful to criticise Islamists, not Islam."

That is an absurd premise. The problem at the core is Islam itself, its doctrines and the conduct, words and character of Muhammad who is regarded as the 'perfect man', the example to all Moslems and in whose names terrorists commit their atrocities in direct imitation of his career as a warlord, mass murderer, rapist, paedophile, slave owner/trader, racist and religious bigot. The doctrines, such as 'taqiyya' (lies told to give a false, positive image of Islam), abrogation (by which certain verses take prominence over others) and especially Jihad (which is clearly not an 'inner struggle' to become a better Moslem!) but a violent warfare to institute a worldwide islamic state under sharia law --- these are doctrines and actions which emphatically should be criticised, along with degradation of females and children (Muhammad's marriage to Aisha at 6 and consummation of it when she was 9 and he 54 is the basis of laws in several Moslem lands allowing for child brides aged 9 or lower with 'parental consent.'
The blunt fact is that to make Islam palatable and bearable in the modern world, one must remove most of the Koran, ahadith and Sira. Not likely.
"At least 75% of the Sira is about jihad. About 67% of the Koran written in Mecca is about the unbelievers, or politics. Of the Koran of Medina, 51% is devoted to the unbelievers. About 20% of Bukhari's Hadith is about jihad and politics. Religion is the smallest part of Islamic foundational texts. Even Hell is political. There are 146 references to Hell in the Koran. Only 6% of those in Hell are there for moral failings --- murder, theft, etc. The other 94% of the reasons for being in Hell are for the intellectual sin of disagreeing with Mohammed, a political crime. Hence, Islamic Hell is a political prison for those who speak against Islam. Mohammed preached his religion for 13 years and garnered only 150 followers. But when he turned to politics and war, in 10 years time he became the first ruler of Arabia by averaging an event of violence every 7 weeks for 9 years. His success did not come as a religious leader, but as a political leader."

Source: www.newenglishreview.org

Somebody has their work cut out for them.

[mis kelly]

Your point is well taken. You are, of course, spot-on. I don't know a better way to phrase what I said. I want to avoid a blanket slam against Islam. How do we leave room for reformers if we dismiss the religion entirely?

Yup, we all have our work cut out for us, whether it's those working towards religious reform or those engaged in self-defense against the revivalists.

[miss kelly]

Let me also add that last month I attended a Ford Hall forum on "Voices from the Moderate Muslim Majority" and I could not have been more disappointed.

http://forum.wgbh.org/wgbh/forum.php?lecture_id=3372

The two speakers, Mona Eltahaway and Harvard's Ali Asani, both basically said that there's no threat by radical Muslims in the US, it's just Islamophobia, the media only covers the angry bearded Muslims, don't worry - be happy. It was such a crock. The speakers at the Tufts Forum, on the other hand, named names, and pointed out the injustices perpetrated by Islamic revivalists, against women, against Muslims and non-Muslims alike. They clearly stated that the Islamic revivalists truly are a threat to all of us and our democratic society. The contrast couldn't have been greater at these two events!

[A Sceptic but interested reader]

I suggest you read a topic on www.dhimmiwatch.org which is just up, regarding the fact that Tufts faculty object to the student newspaper printing facts about Islam. Please read the comments of the readers which follow this topic. You will note that Hugh Fitzgerald comments that considerable attention (by "an investigative journalist") should be directed to the funds received by Tufts for the Fares Lectures held at Tufts. I realise you are hopeful of 'moderate' Moslems finding some form of 'moderate islam.' There is none but I think it better that you investigate the money trails which tie academia to Islam, and not to any 'moderate' version of it. This is a concerted attempt, nation-wide, and world-wide, to prevent any discussion of Islam, its warlord Muhammad or its history. That is because, once known by the general public, the realisation will come that we are dealing with a political ideology of great intolerance and threat, not a religion. At the very least, Islam's present status as a 'religion' (and thereby, its tax-free status) should be removed, and it should be reclassified as an ideology. Whether you choose to post this or not is your decision: if it conflicts with your own agenda, you will not. But you can not plead ignorance of the truth.