The shareef don't like it (Clash...of Stupidities, Part II)

Two recent articles have recently reminded me how far we've come in the self-fulfilling prophecy of the clash of civilizations. A New York Times Op-Ed columnist, Roger Cohen, recently wrote about the struggle between Islam and democracy in Turkey. Islam is a young religion, he noted, and we should not be too impatient with Muslims cutting their teeth on democracy. But, spare the rod and spoil the child -- he concluded that "[t]he fight for Turkey’s soul is not about to abate: it’s salutary as long as it remains open. The West should do all it can to safeguard that openness — and that may involve an occasional dose of “secular fascism.”"

'Scuse me? When did that become our goal? Fight fire with fire, you might be thinking. Well, before I launch into a discussion about why militant democracy is not the answer, let's unpack this a little more.

First of all, why do we care so much? More than we care about cultural divisions in China, Zimbabwe, South Africa, or any host of other countries? You'll notice that the auto-response to this is familiar: If Islam wins the cultural war, Islamists will be elected. Islamists 1) want to kill us and 2) hate freedom. Ergo, we must fight [the good fight] to stop it.

The first argument is the root of the paranoia that will always make the West's supposed democratic agenda a catch-22. The second is more interesting. It lies in the background of the article - the comments about head-to-toe swimsuits and headscarves. It's an appeal to the liberal humanitarian in every red-blooded college grad. It is not made as an argument -- it sets the background for any story about Islam. But it's often employed to underpin the first argument -- that there is danger.

Today, it seems that we are obsessed with the clash within civilizations. We wait with bated breath to see "which way" Algeria will go. But for all the debate about it, all the articles, in depth analysis, and philosophizing we forget one thing -- it's not our fight. And it's especially not our place to turn it into a battle between good and evil, whatever the disclaimers that we understand the subtlety.

Meanwhile, here at home, cheering for secularism has turned Islam into the demon. The debate is so polarizing that calling a presidential candidate a Muslim is considered a smear that he will risk isolating voters to avoid. We have plenty to deal with here in the US regarding relations with Muslims.

The divisiveness breeds a radicalization of both sides. There is a push and pull going on in Islam, even here. To be a Mulsim in the US today is to be caught between being a haraami and committing cultural suicide; to be considered radical instead of pious or a traitor instead of a secularist. There is plenty of room for improvement and debate here at home.

All I'm saying is, it ain't your job to rock the casbah.

Clash of Stupidities, Part I

According to popular rhetoric these days, we're fighting a War on Terror, not a War on Islam. Many people distrust Muslims (perhaps subconsciously), but there are not so many who would say that they are all the enemy. Most of them peacefully practicing their [objectionable and archaic] religion. No, they are not the enemy...just backward, confused, or in general in need of a good dose of Western liberal values.

Even the U.S. has attempted to make a point of separating Islam and Islamists. Some governments have even attempted to forgo using religious terminology, like jihad, that insinuates that Islam condones terror. We don't want to isolate the moderate Muslims, we are often told, because they are the ones who will insure religion is eventually reformed into something tolerable.

But while many well-intentioned Westerners are trying to win the hearts and minds of the good savages moderate Muslims, there are others who say it is exactly these supposed moderates who are the enemy. According to Daniel Pipes and groups like Campus Watch, the moderates are the most dangerous, because they don't understand how to question authority and will eventually be led into terror. In fact, even a non-religious Arabic language public school in New York is a threat, because...well it teaches Arabic. But more importantly, according to Mr. Pipes, it is through these channels that "lawful Islamists" will carry out their soft jihad to stage a radical Islamic coup, establishing such dangerous things as responsible shar'ia compliant lending.

While many of us might dismiss Mr. Pipes, he may only be the extreme incarnation of a deeper fear about Muslims who don't carry bombs, but degrees and American citizenship. These are the ones who want women's only hours. They want to pray during the middle of the day. They want to challenge Western secular views of religion as something that happens inside your mind, and need not be manifested externally. And what if they were to lead our society?

An article in the Economist talks about historical works on Islam and secularism, but a question that reveals much more about problems today. After reaching the conclusion that modern governments in the Muslim world will not survive without a basis in Islam, the article then asks about the possible fate of religious minorities under an Islamic government. At best, it concludes, they would be second-class citizens.

And that's the core of the Western view: secularism is a neutral space, where everyone can be free to believe whatever they like, so long as they don't act on it. But anything else- even in moderation - is a threat.