Give Dialogue with Mainstream Muslims a Chance

Written Sep 11, 2006

A version of this commentary was published today in the Orlando Sentinel.

Sept. 11, 2001, was undoubtedly a great tragedy. On this fifth anniversary it is time for us collectively to look forward to ensure this never happens again.

However, instead of focusing on the somber lessons learned from that ill-fated day, President Bush opened the new political season by resorting to the politics of fear. His use of ill-defined rhetoric such as “violent Islamic radicalism” sounded much like his earlier faux pas “crusades” and “Islamic fascism.” Bush went on to say, “It is foolish to think you can negotiate with them.” No one ever suggested negotiating with al-Qaeda.

Several reports indicate that we are not necessarily winning the war on terror. Is there an alternative way to tackle this menace? For example, is it appropriate to ask if Iraq is on the front lines of the war on terror and thus the need to “stay the course,” or is it because we are “staying the course” that Iraq is spiraling into a cauldron of civil war?

Evoking emotionally charged rhetoric like “Islamic fascism” or “Islamic radicalism” obfuscates the complexity behind terrorism. By focusing almost exclusively on the views of groups such as al-Qaeda, Bush has granted undeserved legitimacy to extremists. By failing to address the legitimate concerns of the vast majority of Muslims worldwide, the president has marginalized the voices of moderation in the Muslim world who, in overwhelming numbers, disapprove of terrorism as a means for redressing grievances.

Despite common knowledge that all terrorists are not Muslims and that not all Muslims are terrorists, so much of our discourse continues to juxtapose “Islam” and “terrorism.”

A few scholarly works have begun to debunk this mythical link between Islam and terrorism. Robert Pape’s book “Dying to Win” argues that the real common denominator of suicide-terrorism campaigns is that they are all, in one form or another, responses to occupation or foreign control of a national homeland. Pape is deeply skeptical about the notion that suicide bombers are warriors in a “clash of civilizations” between Islam and the West. His research reveals that there is nothing intrinsically “Islamic” about suicide bombers.

Thus, security measures alone are not going to make us safe. We will be safe only when others perceive themselves to be safe from our policies.

Currently, opinions about the U.S. are at their worst ever. A recent Gallup World Poll shows that, from North Africa to Southeast Asia, overwhelming majorities (91 percent to 95 percent) do not consider the United States to be trustworthy or friendly. Nearly 80 percent believe that the U.S. does not care about human rights.

Despite such misgivings, Muslims worldwide admire our political freedoms. Studies show that overwhelming majorities of Muslims support freedom of speech, religion and assembly. Muslims are also critical of their own societies, citing extremism, terrorism, lack of political freedom, and corruption as some of their major roadblocks to progress.

Such convergence of aspirations has not translated into a common agenda of progress on matters related to security and freedom. Our lack of any serious attempt to forge meaningful dialogue with Muslims both at home and abroad is one of many sources and indicators of our misguided policies.

To overcome this spiraling of misunderstanding, it is time our policymakers constructively engage mainstream Muslim voices both at home and abroad. Those voices are asking America to demonstrate a deeper understanding of Islam and yearning to develop symbiotic relationships, all working toward the common center of mutual good.

If understood and harnessed properly, Islam could be the protagonist of this dialogue. One of the greatest philosophers of our time, Seyyed Hossain Nasr, writes, “The history of Islam has certainly not been witness to any more violence than one finds in other civilizations, particularly that of the West. . . . Islam limits (force) and opposes violence as aggression to the rights of both God and His creatures. . . . Islam seeks to enable man to live according to his theomorphic nature and not to violate that nature. . . . Islam is the exertion of human will and effort in the direction of conforming to the Will of God and in surrendering the human will to the divine Will. From this surrender (taslim) comes peace (salaam).”

We tried war. Violence has begotten more terror. Can we give meaningful and sustainable dialogue with mainstream Muslims a chance? Attorney General Gonzalez recently wrote that it is imperative to, “identify new partners and strengthen existing relationships, particularly in the Muslim community.” This talk now needs to translate into actions.