This is the second of a four-part series of posts on foreign reactions to recent anti-Muslim rhetoric in the U.S. In Part I we looked at the Park51 project, also known as the “Ground Zero Mosque,” and found concern over growing anti-Muslim sentiment in the U.S. There were also claims about Zionist interests, creating a double-bind situation that would cast the U.S. in a negative light whether the project proceeds or not. At the same time there was an emphasis on diversity of opinion on the subject in the U.S. and an overall more muted reaction than observers here and abroad expected.

Today we consider the coverage of ”International Burn a Qur’an Day.” Given the attention that this story has been getting — one of the stated goals of the event — we can be sure that most people have heard of Gainesville, Florida’s Dove World Outreach Center Pastor Terry Jones’ plan to burn Qur’ans on September 11.

Compared to the other events we’re reviewing in this series, this one is of greatest concern because of its potential to inflame passions and incite violence. Yesterday, General David Petraeus, in an unusual public comment on a U.S. political issue, warned that the event:

could cause significant problems for American troops overseas. It could endanger troops and it could endanger the overall effort in Afghanistan.

In a Hardball interview with Jones the issue of the international reaction came up, but Pastor Jones dodged the question, focusing instead on his goal:

Matthews: What do you think the reaction will be as this goes on international television?

Jones: Well I hope it will send a very clear message.

Matthews: What would be the reaction, what would be the consequence?

Jones: Of Islam, that they should not try to do what they have done in Europe. You see in Europe as they took a lackadaisical attitude, as Europe did not move forward, you see that the Moslems in Europe, as they gained in population they also began to demand Sharia law, Sharia courts, which is a very violent form of punishment. And what we hope to accomplish by the burning of the Koran is to send a very clear–it is indeed a radical message but a clear and radical message to Moslems, to Sharia law, that that is not welcomed in America.

Jones also named former President Bush as a politician he respects, but said that he would still not stop the planned event if he were personally asked to do so by Bush.

Mainstream Reaction

Protests of the event have been organized in South Asia. The Nation Online in Pakistan reported on protests in Lahore on August 27. Earlier this week the Associated Press reported on a protest in Kabul involving “hundreds” of Afghans who condemned the planned event, burned U.S. flags, and demanded U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan.

On Sunday in Indonesia, there was also a protest involving 3000 people.  Here, non-Muslims and Muslim supporters of pluralism have been speaking out against the event since its announcement. Given Indonesia’s recent history of episodes of sectarian violence — in Poso, Ambon, the North Moluccas, Kupang — as well as recent church burnings and bombings, the fact that non-Muslims are on edge is understandable. Although the story is being used to make a broader condemnation of the United States, much of the communication about the proposed burning has been remarkably evenhanded, including noting the work of pluralist groups in Indonesia to head off retaliation there.

Elsewhere mainstream reaction uniformly condemned the event as reflecting religious intolerance, and many expressed concern that it would provoke violent reactions in the Muslim world. On August 24, the Organization of the Islamic Conference (an association of 56 Islamic states promoting Muslim solidarity in economic, social, and political affairs) called the event a “motivated act of hatred and religious intolerance” and expressed fear the event would provoke violence and unrest in the Muslim world. The Muslim World League, based in Saudi Arabia, also predicted the event would have an adverse impact on relations and co-existence of world nations.

Stories in Jordan from  Al-Ghad and khaberni.com incited negative reader reactions. Some readers called for God to “punish the evildoers,” “burn them as they burn His word,” and wished for “floods and earthquakes to strike Florida” on September 11. These readers saw the event as proof of anti-Muslim sentiment and America’s “war on Islam.”

An article on Ikhwan Web, the web site of the Muslim Brotherhood (there is debate about whether this website should be considered mainstream or extremist) described the reaction of Dr. Diaa Rashwan, Islamic movements’ expert at Egypt ’s Al-Ahram Centre for Political and Strategic Studies, who:

described the intended burnings of the Quran as unreasonable and exceedingly dangerous, going beyond all reason and sensibility. He maintained that a serious crisis will arise and extremism will be initiated in the Muslim world stressing that it is imperative that the US administration and UN interfere before a vicious circle of violence and extremism is initiated.

Another post on Ikhwan Web said the event revealed the violent nature of Christian “terrorists” who fight ideas with violence rather than opposing ideas.

Finally, in August, a story in the Iranian Republic News Agency reported comments by Mehdi Mostafavi, head of Iran’s Islamic Culture and Communications Organization. He called the event “a totally Zionist gesture” and said it is a “war-seeking discourse” designed to promote religious strife:

While the world needs peace and cooperation of nations, such radical, irrational, and Zionist moves only aim to trigger chaos and seek division among followers of different religions.

Extremist Reaction

Zeb commented on a post about the event at U.S. based Revolution Muslim (the blog at the center of the recent South Park controversy) by claiming that Jones is a fire worshiper (i.e. Zoroastrian). He also linked to his own blog, Takht-e-Sulaiman. In that post, he said:

Now it seems like they’re up for another mega satanic ritual on September the 11th. As a church (as these devils are hiding behind a church this time) is gathering help to burn Muslim’s holy book. Let’s see where they take the world. I don’t know if Muslims now are this much gallant to protest against it with utmost force that it deserves, but if it happens (ALLAH forbid) then this act calls for a war. And I’d love to personally kill terry jones.

Two above-ground Islamist groups in Indonesia have spoken out against the Qur’an burning. Habib Rizieq, the leader of the Islamic Defenders Front (FPI), vowed retaliation in Indonesia against non-Muslims if the burning is carried out (in an English-language Jakarta Post story). He later “softened” his stance, arguing that those not involved in the burning should not be punished, that it is permissible (halal) to kill those who are directly involved, and that President Obama should step in to stop the act. These stories have been reported in Indonesian-language media as well.

Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia, an organization that calls for a global caliphate, similarly condemned the proposed burning, calling Jones crazy. The announcement likened the event to igniting spilled oil with a cigarette lighter, and noted the unease with which non-Muslims in Indonesia are viewing the event. It also links the event to the controversy over the proposed Park51 project in New York City. Calling the United States “hypocritical,” it noted that this act is consistent with the actions of crusaders, and that former President George W. Bush himself has invoked the term “crusade.” It also asks why the Pope has not stepped in, perhaps showing as much ignorance about sects of Christianity as Westerners often show about Islam. (An Egyptian blog similarly missed this distinction, arguing that the event was to draw attention away from the Catholic Church’s ongoing sex scandals.) On the 27th of August, some 300 HTI protesters demonstrated in front of the American embassy, demanding that the burning must be stopped. Other branches of HTI continue to hold protests throughout Indonesia in the hope that the burning will not take place.

HTI-sympathizing site Syabab similarly invokes George Bush’s use of the term “crusade” to describe the actions of the US and the West. The article enumerates past and recent perceived transgressions toward Islam, and accuses the United States of racism against Muslims. Interestingly, it appears as though Jones and some of the Islamists share some common ground. Jones argues that Islam is not compatible with democracy, the West, and human rights, and that Muslims do not accept Jesus Christ as their savior. The latter is not surprising, but the other three points are themselves made by Muslim extremists who condemn U.S. actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Although it is a view not shared by a majority of the world’s Muslims, many extremists argue that since democracy formulates laws based on human opinion it is a form of shirk (idolatry), in contrast to divinely revealed Islamic law. Similar arguments are made about the West in general and human rights.

Although it is impossible to locate the original source of this rumor, a simple Google search for “Terry Jones arrested” shows a multitude of stories alleging that the pastor was arrested on child molestation charges, charges that are not true.

Selective Attention

One pattern we see in these stories is selective attention to the worst aspects of the controversy, perhaps in an effort to sensationalize it. For example, a couple of weeks ago reports surfaced that an armed Christian militia group, called Right Wing Extreme, offered to provide security at the Quran burning event. This story was reported in Al-Ghad on August 24. However, the group withdrew its planned support for the event because “after much thought and prayer the organization’s leadership determined this event does not glorify GOD in way that lead the lost to Jesus Christ.” We can find no evidence that this change of heart was reported in Al-Ghad or other foreign outlets.

Also receiving little coverage is the condemnation of the event by a prominent Christian organization in the U.S. As Jennifer Bryson noted, there has not been a groundswell of opposition. However, the National Association of Evangelicals, the largest evangelical group in the country, urged cancellation of the event, saying it would “show disrespect for our Muslim neighbors and would exacerbate tensions between Christians and Muslims throughout the world.” The Simon Wiesenthal Center has also condemned the event.  The Veterans of Foreign Wars also denounced the event this week, saying extremists would exploit it.

Yet, unlike the case of the Park51 project, there is little mention of this alternate stance in the foreign media.  This is ironic given that the congregation of the Dove World Outreach Center is reported to include about 50 people, a number that is dwarfed by the membership of the organizations that have registered opposition.

Conclusion

As might be expected, reaction to the Qur’an burning event was more negative and less balanced than coverage of the Park51 project. Mainstream sources uniformly condemned the act and said it reflected religious intolerance, especially toward Islam. These sources also expressed concern that the event, if it goes forward, would provoke violence, as the protests that have already occurred indicate. Though we could not find as many attempts to link the event with Jewish or Zionist interests as we found in the Park51 case, the Iranian government did attempt to make this connection.

Extremists are using the event to stoke tension and provoke violence. They are calling for war and death to those involved in the event. The extremists have also made efforts to tar all Christians with the actions of this group, arguing that it is somehow related to problems in the Catholic Church (even though the group involved is Protestant). They also frame the event with the Crusader narrative, implying that it is more evidence that the United States wants to destroy Islam.

Finally, we note that, unlike the Park51 case, there is little coverage of facts that contradict the basic negative storyline. The decision of the militia group to support the event was reported, but their later decision to withdraw for religious reasons was not. There has been no coverage of the condemnation of the event by prominent Christian, Jewish or Veterans’ groups, either.

Tomorrow, in Part III of this series, we examine foreign reaction to an assortment of “smaller” recent events involving attacks on Muslims and Muslim groups in the United States.

Related posts:

1. Foreign Reaction to US Anti-Muslim Events, Part I: Ground-Zero Mosque by Steven R. Corman, Jeffry R. Halverson, and Chris Lundry...
2. Recent Events in Indonesia and the Philippines Having recently returned from a brief (four-day!) trip to Indonesia...
3. Getting to the Bottom of Explosive Rumors Concerning Noordin Top by Chris Lundry Dwarfed by the stories of the earthquake tragedy...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Recent weeks have seen an uptick in anti-Muslim events and associated rhetoric in the U.S.  Controversies include:

• The Park51 project in New York, popularly known as the “Ground Zero Mosque”
• The International Burn a Quran Day being planned for 9/11 by the Dove World Outreach Center in Florida
• Various other incidents, such as the stabbing of cab driver Ahmed Sharif in New York, a man urinating in the prayer room of a New York mosque, the punching of a man wearing a turban in Seattle, and arson of construction equipment being used to build a new Islamic community center in Murfreesboro, Tennessee.

Analysts have warned of the negative consequences that these controversies could have as they played out in foreign Muslim audiences. Jeff Halverson, writing in this blog, concluded that they would widen the say-do gap of the United States. Other analysts warn that the rhetoric surrounding these controversies is a boon to extremist groups like al Qaeda. Evan Kohlmann, quoted in a Wall Street Journal piece, warned: “We are handing al Qaeda a propaganda coup, an absolute propaganda coup.”

In a Daily Show bit on August 25, John Stewart poked fun at such warnings, comparing extremists to a crazy ex-girlfriend. Referring to the Park51 project he said:

Apparently the jihadists are the only ones in this whole [expletive] thing that can’t lose. It doesn’t matter what we do… See one side says our weakness emboldens jihadis. The other side says our strength embitters jihadis. How about we try a new system where we don’t give a [expletive] about what they think?

While it’s true that there is little profit in worrying about what the extremists think, the same is not true of mainstream Muslims.

Estimates are that about one-quarter of the world’s population is Muslim. The vast majority of these people are peaceful. Were that not true the world would have been a smoking ruin long ago. These average Muslims, both in the U.S. and abroad, are the “territory” in the  much talked about “battle for hearts and minds,” and it matters–a lot–whether or not they think the U.S. is in a clash of civilizations with the Muslim world.

This is a fact that we think has received too little attention in the current controversies. It’s not so much about how extremists view them; that is predicable. But how are they playing with mainstream Muslims?

We decided to have a look. In this, the first of a four-part series, we see how the Park51 project is playing in the media of the Muslim world. In part two, we do the same for the Qur’an burning controversy. In part three we look at various other recent anti-Muslim incidents, including those mentioned above. We conclude in part four by looking at some generalities across the cases, and drawing some conclusions about how we could communicate about such issues in ways that better serve our national interests.

Park51

As it has in the American media, the Park51 Project (formerly Cordoba House) has received significant attention from media outlets aimed at predominantly Muslim audiences. The media sources examined below range from online message boards and blogs to major news outlets, such as al-Jazeera. In many cases, an interaction between these different media sources is also evident. Three themes we discovered include the notion that the controversy stems from hatred of Muslims, that it is somehow linked to Zionist interests, and that not all Americans agree with the anti-Mosque/Muslim sentiments.

Hatred of Muslims

A significant theme in the stories and posts we reviewed is that the controversy over the Park51 project reflects negative attitudes toward Muslims, ranging from distrust to hate. A thread on an Arabic message board from the website Muslim.net criticizes the “Swine director” of al-Arabiya news organization, Abdel-Rahman al-Rashed (a photo of him smiling with George W. Bush is shown), for his opposition to the Park51 project and his criticism of Obama’s tacit support for the project. The post is a response to materials carried by mainstream media sources, likely Western in origin. The e-signature in the message board post emphasizes the extremist orientation of the user, it includes a statement declaring that America will meet its end between 2011-2012, “God willing.”

On another Arabic language message board, this one focused on Salafi Islam, a post quotes the “leader of the Tea Party movement (Hizb al-Shay)” Mark Williams, as saying that Muslims are “animals of Allah” and “the [Park51] mosque is for the terrorists to worship a monkey god.” The same post further explains that the Tea Party is a conservative right-wing movement, mostly of white religious people, associated with the Republican Party, and that it has also been involved in racism scandals. The post also notes that some believe the group is a reaction to America’s first black president. The source for this information is not given, but it appears that it is largely derived from a mainstream news source.

In a panel discussion aired on al-Jazeera on August 24,  As’ad Abu-Khalil, Professor of Political Science at the California State University, said the controversy is part of a widespread hatred of Muslims in the U.S.:  “We must admit that there is a hate ideology against Islam in this country, which is no different from other hate campaigns such as the anti-Jewish Nazi hostility.”

Writing in Dawn Online, Tariq Fatemi argues that the Park51 controversy is a worrying sign of larger anti-Muslims sentiment in the U.S.:

These efforts cannot be dismissed as the actions of a fringe group, as confirmed by a recent Time magazine poll which found that 61 per cent of Americans oppose the project. The poll also found that 43 per cent of Americans hold unfavourable views of Muslims, while 21 per cent were convinced that most Muslims in the US are not patriotic Americans. Further confirmation of this alarming tendency has come in the growing opposition to mosque construction in other American cities, notably Nashville.

Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia posted a story noting plans by the FBI to monitor mosques in America, and linked it to the Park51 project. The story notes that 51 percent of Americans “still view Muslims in a negative light.” In a subsequent post, HTI links the attack of taxi driver Ahmed Sharif to the project: “After all of the anti-Muslim rhetoric surrounding the debate about Park51… it’s not surprising that many people, the opponents, act in other ways: attacking a taxi driver.” The story notes other recent acts against Islam as well, including a man urinating in a mosque in Queens and the vandalism of a mosque in Fresno (these events will be covered in parts 2 and 3 of this blog post).

Links to Zionism

Some outlets linked the controversy to Jewish or Zionist interests. One large outlet, the Arabic language al-Jazeera, had a news story that appears to be a standard mainstream news report. However, it explicitly identifies a Democratic state legislator who opposes the Park51 project as Jewish. The story does not mention the fact that Mayor Bloomberg, a leading supporter of the project, is also Jewish. Bloomberg’s religion is not identified in the article, even though his position on the project is mentioned.

An additional article from the major Egyptian newspaper, Al-Masri Al-Yom, relates that a group of ulama (religious scholars) from al-Azhar in Cairo responded to endorsements of the Park51 project from the New York Times and columnist Thomas Friedman (both perceived as pro-Israel) by stating that the mosque project is actually a sinister plot to forever link the 9-11 terrorist attacks to Islam. Another scholar quoted in the article adds that Islam is innocent of the 9-11 attacks and the Park51 matter is part of a Zionist conspiracy.

Similarly, in Indonesia the Gencar Alhulbait Nusantara posted a blog with the title “The Tragedy of 911 a Failure of the Zionists.” Although the title is inflammatory, and there is an image of a monkey with a star of David on its face, the post itself notes the interfaith coalition of Jews, Muslims and Christians who have come together to support the project.

Finally, an editorial from Karachi, Pakistan, similarly notes: “It is truly unfortunate that the Cordoba project [i.e. Park51] has provided an opportunity to the neo-con media abetted by the Anti-Defamation League and the cowardly Democrats to uncork national hysteria to gain short-term advantage by pandering to fears.” The editorial continues by noting recent poll numbers from Time magazine to claim that “these [anti-Islam] efforts cannot be dismissed as the actions of a fringe group” and cites the growing opposition to mosque projects throughout the U.S., not simply near Ground Zero.

Diversity in U.S. Opinion

Other media outlets have been far less negative about the controversy, however, and seemingly at pains to acknowledge the diversity of opinion about the matter in the United states. A Saudi Arabian news site, Jedda Arab News Online, carries an editorial that states:

It is not in the Middle East or Afghanistan that the struggle for hearts and minds needs to be won, it is in the US and Europe. There is a real danger of Islamophobia becoming mainstream in the US, as is happening in Europe. Islam is being used by the right in the US as the midterm elections approach to frighten  voters into line.

But the editorial does conclude on a positive note, stating: “We must remember, too, that there are many Americans who are not ignorant or bigoted, with them we need to work.”  The same source sent a similar message in an August 27 editorial:

If ever there was a need for interfaith and intercultural dialogue, it is now. While the furor over plans to build an Islamic community center and mosque near Ground Zero in New York continues, there comes yet another poll about Islam in the US. The latest suggests that Americans do not believe Islam encourages violence and that they think Muslims should have the right to build mosques wherever they want.

That the proposed site has become a campaign issue is echoed in Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia’s coverage. It notes that Democrats, including Harry Reid, have spoken out against the project, and that President Obama has backtracked on his statement of support.

The leftist-nationalist Cumhuriyet in Turkey also reported diversity of U.S. opinion about the project, saying:

Despite growing opposition to the construction of a mosque near Ground Zero, the New York Neighbors for American Values, a coalition of the families of 9/11 victims, voiced support for a Muslim community center and mosque near the site of the Sept 11 attacks in Manhattan.

Conclusion

Overall, the Park51 controversy has generated a good deal of negative coverage in Muslim foreign media. Most of the opinions we found suggest that the controversy indexes distrust or hatred of Muslims, and worries that the controversy may only be the tip of a looming iceberg. Other discussion links the controversy in one way or another to Jewish or Zionist interests. Taken together, these opinions suggest a double bind: If the project is allowed to continue it will be because it serves Jewish interests in aggravating tensions between Muslims and Christians. If it does not proceed, it will be an indication of U.S. hostility to Muslims.

At the same time, the coverage has not been uniformly bad. Many outlets emphasize that the opponents of the project are not representative of the U.S. as a whole, and/or attribute the controversy to conservative election-year politics.

Overall it is safe to say that the controversy has not created a firestorm in the Muslim world, as some worried it might. Speaking in an interview on National Public Radio last Thursday, Ramez Maluf, professor of journalism at the Lebanese American University in Beirut, said of the controversy:

Surprisingly, there hasn’t been the amount of coverage that one would expect. There has been quite a few opinion pieces written in newspapers and so forth, but not really to the extent that I think most of us would have expected.

Tomorrow, in Part II of this series, we’ll examine foreign reaction to the “International Burn a Qur’an Day.”

Related posts:

1. Mosque Controversy Widens Say-Do Gap by Jeffry R. Halverson In the aftermath of the September...
2. Muslim Punk Rock is Nothing New by Chris Lundry In an AP wire story picked up...
3. Why “Moderate Islam” is the Wrong Language by Mark Woodward* The terminology used in English and other...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

In the aftermath of the September 11th attacks, Indian novelist and activist Arundhati Roy wrote an opinion piece in the British daily The Guardian, stating:

[Bin Laden] has been sculpted from the spare rib of a world laid to waste by American foreign policy: its gunboat diplomacy, its nuclear arsenal, its vulgarly stated policy of ‘full-spectrum dominance,’ its chilling disregard for non-American lives, its barbarous military interventions, its support for despotic and dictatorial regimes, its merciless economic agenda that has munched through the economies of poor countries like a cloud of locusts.

In case you were wondering, Roy is neither an Islamist nor even a Muslim; she’s the daughter of a Christian and a Hindu. I cite Roy’s words because I think it illustrates a widespread international attitude toward American foreign policy, or what some have described as American “imperialism” and “militarism.” Wherever you stand on this issue, I want you to focus on one important question: At what point do actions speak louder than words? It’s a vital question. So far the American government is failing to support its words with appropriate actions. America’s ideals and principles are not being communicated by its actions.

The speech that President Obama gave in Cairo at the beginning of his term was generally met with enthusiasm and approval in Muslim societies, albeit with some caution and reserve. Justifying that reserve, I dare say that the government’s actions have yet to live up to the President’s words. Meanwhile, the public discourse in the United States has taken a decidedly hostile turn against Muslims, hardly the “new beginning” Obama spoke about.

From Congress all the way to Main Street, the majority of Americans, if polls about the Cordoba House project are indicative, appear to equate the nineteen 9/11 hijackers (15 Saudis, 1 Egyptian, 1 Lebanese, 2 from the UAE) with all Muslims, including American Muslims, despite the fact that there is no evidence Americans were involved in the attack. “They” are all one and the same.

For instance, a popular Facebook group opposing the Cordoba House project in New York City has over 115,000 online supporters and states:

Planting a mosque just two blocks from where Muslims murdered Americans on 9/11 in the name of Islam is a huge slap in the face. . . They claim a right to be insulted by cartoons mocking their prophet, even to the point of beheading people. [Emphasis added]

Apparently there is no distinction between American Muslims, including those who have lived in NYC long before the 9/11 attacks, and the 19 foreign nationals (most of them Saudis) who killed some 3,000 Americans, including many Muslim Americans. Opposition to mosques is not limited to the two-block radius around Ground Zero either. It is being documented around the country. Detractors are no longer citing traffic concerns either, they openly claim that mosques will bring terrorists into their neighborhoods.

In the immediate aftermath of the attacks, there was a conscious effort on the part of the Bush administration and many other groups to try to allay anti-Muslim sentiment in our country and prevent the outbreak of widespread violence against American Muslims. Furthermore, despite persistent urban myths to the contrary, there was widespread condemnation of the attacks throughout the Muslim world.

In the years since that time, in which violence against American Muslims did nevertheless occur, the efforts by the Bush administration and others to promote coexistence have become the subject of ridicule as dishonest “political correctness” and “pandering” to extremists. President Bush’s televised statement that “Islam means peace” has since become a derisive joke. This is even evident in President Obama’s own obvious discomfort with Muslims, rooted in his need to distance himself from anything that may feed the persistent conspiracy theories that Obama himself is some sort of “covert Muslim,” or even an Islamist.

For example, after a statement of support for Mayor Bloomberg’s position on the Cordoba House project, Obama–who is still in his first term–qualified his remarks, stating that:

I was not commenting, and I will not comment, on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there. I was commenting very specifically on the right people have that dates back to our founding. That’s what our country is about.

The Cordoba House case, along with many incidents at home and abroad, communicates a clear message: A substantial number of Americans, even a majority, think, or privately suspect, that we are at war with Islam as a whole. This idea is furthermore guiding actions and informing public discourse. In such a climate, all the bags of wheat with the red, white, and blue logos on them, all the smiling soldiers playing soccer and handing out candy, all the official Ramadan greetings and public speeches relating holiday words of kindness, do nothing so long as our actions provide ample fodder for Osama bin Laden and other extremists who are telling Muslim societies that we are at war with them, with “Islam,” the religion of over 1 billion people.

There are plenty of non-Muslim Americans, including government officials, who agree with Bin Laden too, and they write best-selling books, give speeches, fund organizations, and elect candidates to communicate Bin Laden’s message for him, of America versus Islam. In fact, I would say that those who advocate the fantasy of a holy “clash of civilizations” are far more inclined to action than those who disagree with it. Far more.

So what do these actions communicate? When an audience cannot understand English, they can still understand a bullet, a bomb, or, yes, a reconstruction project. When Afghan civilians are killed by an American drone firing missiles into the mountains near Peshawar, no amount of apologies, translated or not, will atone for it. No bags of wheat, medical treatment, school books, or new wells, will make up for the loss of a family member or a child (if indeed they get any of those things). America will be seen in the unflattering terms expressed above by Ms. Roy. Of course, the extremists have killed countless civilians. In fact, al-Qaeda and its affiliates have killed far more Muslims than they have “infidel” Americans. Far more.  So what are the extremists saying or doing that America is not?

America is a foreign power; a superpower, in fact, with over 700 military bases around the world. The Taliban may be brutal, oppressive, tyrants, and thugs, but they are Afghans. Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) may be vicious, but they are North Africans (Arabs and Berbers). A narrative of freedom from occupation is a very easy message for extremists to communicate, a story long understood in many regions of the Muslim world. We must be far more attentive to what our actions are communicating in such contexts.

It is wise and informed actions that go farthest in neutralizing the shamefully effective actions by extremists to cast America into “crusader” narratives. The invasion of Iraq was an absolute gift to them, in more ways than one. The ongoing financial and political support of authoritarian regimes is another. Words about freedom and democracy mean nothing to people in the Middle East when our actions and tax dollars support the Saudi monarchy and the Mubarak regime. How can so many Americans be up-in-arms about the American Muslim Cordoba House project, when they buy products and stock from companies (such as Apple and Priceline) that are part-owned by members of the Wahhabist Saudi monarchy?

Yes, actions do speak louder than words. The act of building the Cordoba House has created irrational outrage before construction has even begun, despite statements and speeches attempting to allay the hostility over the project. The act of America’s physical military presence in numerous Muslim societies also speaks louder than a thousand statements about noble ideals of freedom and democracy for those societies, especially when America fails to live up to those ideals by backing oppressive authoritarian regimes.

In terms of a communication strategy, there’s obviously serious work to be done — not just talked about — as the status quo goes on. Our current actions clearly aren’t communicating the right message, and our well-intended words are being undermined by our actions.

Editor’s Update — August 23

Since Jeff posted this, there has been news of growing concern about the public diplomacy and strategic communication implications of this controversy.  Two articles, in the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, cite counterterrorism officials saying that the controversy is being exploited by extremists.  The latter article is especially interesting because WSJ is owned by Rupert Murdock’s News Corporation, which liberal commentators like Frank Rich accuse of stoking the controversy.

Related posts:

1. Obama’s Nobel Speech Opens Narrative Possibilities by Bud Goodall In Thursday’s Nobel acceptance speech, President Obama...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

While in Singapore for the ICA conference with colleagues from the CSC, interesting news kept coming in from Indonesia concerning its ongoing fight against terrorism. It was quite a contrast to what appeared to be the biggest story in Singapore: the conviction of a foreigner who spray-painted a train, a story that took up several pages of coverage and included a detailed step-by-step illustration recreating the crime. Such news seemed to drown out some of the more important regional goings-on (and brought back memories of the caning of American Michael Fay).

In Indonesia, the media continued its coverage of the trial of Mohammed Jibril, the continuing arrests and trials of Noordin Top’s accomplices and associates, and the arrest of terrorist Sunata.

Jibril was accused of seeking financial support for the Jemaah Islamiyah (JI) terrorists who bombed the Ritz-Carlton and J.W. Marriott hotels in Jakarta last summer. He runs the jihadist Ar Rahmah website, where he has publicly denied wrongdoing. A court in Jakarta disagreed, and he was given a 5-year sentence.  Ar Rahmah continues to publish jihadist commentary and news.

The web of arrests connected to Noordin Top’s demise continues to expand, with police charging his father-in-law Baharudin Latif, Baharudin’s son Ata Sabiq Alim, and Noordin’s wife Arina Rahmah with knowingly giving refuge to a wanted terrorist. Last week, Putri Munawaroh, a survivor of the 17 September raid last year during which Noordin Top was killed, was sentenced to eight years for harboring him. Finally, this week brought an eight-year sentence to Saefudin Zuhri, also accused of aiding Noordin Top.

The arrest of Sunata continues to make headlines in Indonesia. He joined KOMPAK to fight Christians in Maluku in 1999, but was first arrested in 2005 for weapons possession and hiding Noordin Top. He was released after being considered a shining example of Indonesia’s deradicalization program, but returned to his old ways, plotting a Mumbai-style attack on Jakarta as well as the assassination of the Indonesian president, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono. He was also linked to the recent arrests and killings of militants who created a training camp in Aceh, partly in an attempt to forge common ground between different militant groups. He will join Amir Abdillah in prison, sentenced earlier in June for his connection to the assassination plot.

The arrest of Sunata raises some important questions about Indonesia’s deradicalization program. The English-language broadsheet the Jakarta Globe interviewed Agus Nahrowi, the Senior Program Officer for Search for Common Ground, an NGO aimed at deradicalization in Jakarta’s prison following the arrest. Curiously, the interview doesn’t mention Sunata’s arrest, but rather paints a somewhat sunny picture of deradicalization. Sunata’s arrest raises serious doubts about its effectiveness. Both the CSC and the ICG have posted criticisms of the deradicalization program (here and here); this story should focus greater attention on the need for better efforts in this direction.

In Surabaya, police arrested three housemaids who were accused of stealing from their employers in order to support terrorism activities. While common theft is not a new tactic for JI, using maids to steal apparently is (and of course it raises questions about the judgment of people who let them into their homes in the first place).

And in above-ground political maneuvering, the Islamist PKS party is making some interesting moves. In Eastern Indonesia, it has been fielding Christian candidates in local elections, which some see as a sign of sell out. One of its Islamist competitors, the PBB, is hoping to capitalize on what it sees as the potential flight of supporters as the PKS tries to broaden its base. Yet at the same time, PKS-backed Information Minister Tifatul Sembiring recently compared the sex tape scandal of boy band Peter Pan’s vocalist Nazril Ariel Irham to the crucifixion of Jesus, infuriating Indonesian Christians. Ariel stated that it might be someone else on the tape, and some Muslims believe that Judas Iscariot — or someone else, or an angel – replaced Jesus before the crucifixion. Many have called for the minister’s resignation.

On a lighter note, I viewed the film “Obama, Anak Menteng” (“Obama, Menteng Kid”) on its opening day in Bandung. It’s a children’s movie, so one can’t read too much into it. It’s full of the usual positive messages (accept diversity, play fair, work and study hard) that are about as subtle as a Mack truck, but it also has some typically ugly stereotypes. Obama’s childhood nemesis is darker skinned than he is — he’s from eastern Indonesia — reinforcing the light-skinned-is-better bias. There is a money-grubbing ethnic Chinese bookie, a particularly ugly stereotype. One of Obama’s family’s helpers is a flamboyantly gay, overwrought, cross-dressing diva with a heart of gold; this role is so overacted as to be a caricature. The character wins acceptance, which is a positive message, but I wonder when homosexuals will play regular roles where they don’t have to act in over-the-top stereotypes. The film avoided discussion of some of the serious issues of the time — Obama’s stepfather was recalled to Indonesia in the wake of a massacre of hundreds of thousands, if not more, suspected communists, and was sent to West Papua, where a separatist insurgency was gaining steam — but I suppose that’s to be expected from a children’s film. Trailer here.

Related posts:

1. Recent arrests in Indonesia by Chris Lundry Indonesian police have continued to make arrests of...
2. Recent Events in Indonesia and the Philippines Having recently returned from a brief (four-day!) trip to Indonesia...
3. New ICG Report on Jihadists in Aceh, Indonesia by Chris Lundry The International Crisis Group has issued another...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

To say Somalia has problems would be the very definition of an understatement.  Piracy has certainly received its share of attention, primarily because it is sensational and somewhat easy to comprehend.  The chaos in the south also gets some attention due to the rise of Islamists groups and the potential for Somalia to become a terrorist safe haven.  Despite this increase in attention, there has been no real political or humanitarian progress in the country.  Education is lacking, violence is a way of life and the political system is a shambles.  It is time to make some dramatic changes to American policy toward Somalia.

Since the fall of the Said Barre regime in 1991, Somalia has been mired in chaos.  In the subsequent twenty years various warlords and Islamist groups have come and gone.  Al-Shabaab is the current Islamist power in the country and has control over much of the south; Hizbul Islam is another emergent Islamist group but it does not have the strength of al-Shabaab.  Both of these groups fight the Transitional Federal Government (TFG), Somalia’s “official” government.

One of al-Shabaab’s tactics is the use of child soldiers.  Children as young as twelve are given weapons and sent out to fight the TFG.  This is not a new tactic in Somalia; Mohammed Farah Aidid, a powerful warlord in the 1990s, used to get teenagers hopped up on qaat, a narcotic plant popular in the region, hand them AK-47s and send them into the streets to foment chaos and frighten the local populace.

Jeffrey Gettleman recently produced a short video and article about child soldiers in Somalia, and pointed out a terrible fact–some of these kids essentially work for the United States.  Gettleman’s piece looks at child soldiers who fight, not for al-Shabaab but for the TFG.  The U.S. provides aid, including pay for soldiers’ salaries and presumably weapons, to an organization that actively uses child soldiers.

This is a horrible situation.  President Obama and officials at the State Department have acknowledged and regret that we are supporting child soldiers.  Senator Russ Feingold argues that we should suspend  security assistance to the TFG until the use of child soldiers stops.  Beyond the obvious tragedy of using children in war, this undermines the authority of the United States.  Foreign intervention is viewed with a great deal of skepticism in Somalia, but a foreign power that is literally putting Somalia’s children in harm’s way is not going to be viewed favorably by the locals or the world community at large.  It is certainly not going to give the local population any reason to trust the U.S.  The U.S. publicly condemns the use of child soldiers yet pays them in Somalia, a blatant hypocrisy.  What do we do about all of this?

The U.S. has hung its hopes on the impotent TFG, a group that has proven time and time again to be ineffective.  The TFG holds only a few blocks of Mogadishu and manages to hold that largely due to the presence of about 6000 African Union troops.  It is time for a radical game change in Somalia.

First, the U.S. must abandon the idea of a centralized Somali state.  Clan divisions alone have proven hard to overcome and are enough to undermine a central government.  Instead we should support a confederal system, a collection of regional governments with a central government limited to very specific functions.  These smaller regional governments need not be divided along clan lines.  Smaller regional governing bodies would allow for greater local autonomy and more cooperation among those who live in close proximity to each other, and eliminate some of the conflict that exists in the current national system.

Second, if the U.S. is going to back a Somali group it should be Ahlu Sunna Wal Jamaah, a Sufi paramilitary group that is opposed to radical Islam.  They have been the most effective in combating al-Shabaab and Hizbul Islam.  The TFG should be disbanded or alter its mission to that of community and humanitarian support, dispensing food, medicine and other logistical tasks.

Third, there needs to be a humanitarian surge; our actions cannot only be military in nature.  The Somali people have enough distrust of foreign intervention that military intervention itself will not be enough to win any hearts or minds.  There needs to be an organized and accountable relief effort.  To avoid some of the pitfalls of the 1990s, this relief effort needs to be backed up by a military force from the African Union.

Fourth, the moderate Islamists need to be won over.  Just as there are meetings between government officials and moderate members of the Taliban in Afghanistan, the moderate Islamists in Somalia need incentives to work with us.

A strong military effort by Ahlu Sunna Wal Jamaah and AU forces, tactical support from the U.S., plus organized humanitarian effort will help stabilize the country; it will not solve all of Somalia’s problems but it will be a drastic improvement.  Stability is a prerequisite to any type of nation-building in Somalia, therefore stability should be our first priority.

There is much that could go wrong with the scenario I have outlined,  but what is abundantly clear is that the status quo is not working.  Somalia has been the poster child for failed states for over twenty years and it is time to rethink our strategy.  Somalia should be a country in which children are given lunch and an education rather than an AK-47 and an extra clip courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer.  The most radical and experimental ideas are not out of bounds when it comes to Somalia.  Our current policy is not working and it is far past time to try something, anything, new.

Related posts:

1. Sometimes a Pirate is Just a Pirate by Bennett Furlow Somalia is finally getting some recognition.  For...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

For some time people who think about the problem of terrorism have faced a puzzling question: Why is it that some Muslims who hold fundamentalist or radical beliefs about Islam become violent, while others don’t? New research shows that the answer is probably not what you might think.

A popular view is that Islam is simply a violent belief system. For example, in National Review’s blog The Corner Andy McCarthy writes:

[A]s an admirer of the courage of moderate Muslims, it is my most fervent wish that they are successful in reforming Islam. We need to be honest, however, that they are trying to achieve reform precisely because there are problems with Islam as is. The most frustrating thing about “moderate Islam” is that no one seems to be able to say what it entails. The so called “radicals” tell us exactly what they believe and (accurately) cite chapter and verse in the scriptures. The moderates never persuasively refute the radicals — they just say the radicals are too “extreme.” This doesn’t come close to making the case that the radicals have Islam wrong. If your goal is to persuade other Muslims — and everyone seems to agree that only Islam can settle its internal divisions — that’s the case that has to be made.

Underlying this statement is a view that Islam, at least as currently constituted, is inherently violent. If so, then the more people know about it the more likely they are to want to kill non-Muslims, and institutions like madrasas, pesantren, and Islamic universities are little more than jihadist indoctrination camps.

However, Mark Woodward (a frequent contributor to this blog) and colleagues find that, at least in Indonesia, the exact opposite seems to be the case. In the abstract of a paper now under review they write:

The paper refutes the linkage of Muslim education in Indonesia with radicalization, and addresses the commonly held, if incorrect, perception that theological conservatism has a causal relationship with violent extremism. Rather than a causal agent for extremism, Muslim education in Indonesia tends to operate as a protective mechanism against radicalization, as does participation in vibrant religious and cultural celebrations. Students attending the secular universities are most susceptible to extremist discourse, through the process of re-Islamization, and the development of a stark and detached rational understanding of Islam.

So the more people know about the theology and traditions of Islam, the less likely they are to be radical.

Also reflected in McCarthy’s viewpoint is the idea that the Muslim world is divided into two camps, the fundamentalists/radicals and the “moderates.” The former group is large, dangerous and violent, while the latter is small, tolerant and peaceful. But Muslims are thought to make up about a quarter of the world’s population. If any large percentage of 1.2 billion people (let alone most of them) were really dangerous and violent the world would have been a smoking ruin long ago. So why isn’t it?

A recent report by Jamie Bartlett, Jonathan Birdwell and Michael King of the UK think tank Demos sheds some light on this question. They spent two years examining the differences and similarities between violent and non-violent Muslims in Europe and Canada who hold radical Islamist political views. The biggest difference difference they found was in the approach to religion. The non-violent radicals are more “humble and reflective” with respect to their faith. They also  tend to study subjects in the humanities and have a better understanding of history and other aspects of social context.

The violent radicals are more likely to be dogmatic and to have an uneducated ”do-it-yourself” approach to religion. They study technical subjects like engineering and computer science and tend to use pejorative terms to reduce people’s worth. They also have a “bizarre obsession” with texts about how to recognize unbelievers, people against whom any action is justified. They believe the ummah (worldwide Muslim community) is under attack, a view the non-violent radicals tend not to support.

So simply holding strong religious views is not enought to make someone violent. What, then, is the difference that makes the difference? It may be youthful boredom.

Many people who became violent said they did so because it was cool, exciting, and dangerous. Training camps were like adventure camps–a counter-culture experience where they got to hang out in in exotic locations and play with weapons. The camps also provided meaningful structure: A sense of camaraderie and a system for building prestige that they found lacking in their normal lives.

Finally, in a new book my colleague Jeff Halverson (another frequent contributor to this blog) argues that theology (kalam)–the rational debate over Muslim beliefs and readings of the sacred texts–became virtually extinct in Sunni Islam in the late Middle Ages. In the absence of theology extremists can espouse heretical and radical viewpoints under the guise of orthodoxy, and promote highly questionable readings of the Qu’ran and Hadith to support their violent enterprises. One anti-theological or Athari group that emerged in the absence of kalam was Wahhabism – a sect that considers theology “satanic.” Today, few institutions and resources remain in place to challenge these Athari formulations (or innovations) of Sunni Islam. In this kind of intellectual environment, it is hardly surprising that unsophisticated views of religion and a “do-it-yourself” approach can prevail.

So a new view of the role of Islam in violence seems to be developing and it is challenging taken for granted views like those of McCarthy. More education in Islam seems to prevent, not cause, violent radicalism. Many or even most politically “radical” Muslims are just as non-violent as the elusive “moderates,” providing they have a sound education that encourages critical thinking and reflection. Those who become violent often do so not because they believe in Islam per se. Instead they are adolescents or young adults who think it would be cool to be a mujahid, and are influenced by self-appointed religious “authorities.” These people are able to self-appoint because there is a dearth of theological institutions to challenge their views.

On the whole this new research suggests that, ironically, the way to combat violent extremism may be to strengthen Islamic education, theology and religious authority, and to provide more constructive, non-violent outlets for youthful desires and radical beliefs.

Related posts:

1. Theology and Creed in Sunni Islam by Jeffry R. Halverson The following is a summary of...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

The following is a summary of some arguments  from my new book, Theology and Creed in Sunni Islam: The Muslim Brotherhood, Ash’arism, and Political Sunnism, published by Palgrave Macmillan.  It offers an explanation of why fundamentalist literal interpretations of the Qu’ran have so much influence in contemporary Islamist extremism, and why extremists’ views about what the Qu’ran says can be so difficult to challenge.

Mohammed Arkoun has described the notion of the “unthinkable” in Islamic thought, referring to the expansive realm of the intellectually forbidden. In recent decades, this realm has been greatly fortified.  But among the pre-modern casualties of the “unthinkable,” there was a surprising fatality, the discipline of Sunni theology (‘ilm al-kalam). Through a complex confluence of events, kalam fell into steady decline during the waning of the ‘Abbasid Caliphate and into virtual extinction as an active discipline by the fifteenth century (CE), replaced by a distinctly creedal enterprise.

Theology is the systematic, rational, defensible articulation of religious beliefs about God, revelation, and the cosmos. Therefore, when I describe the demise of Sunni theology I am referring to theology in this technical sense and not the disappearance of particular axiomatic religious creeds, called ‘aqidah (“creed”). Nor am I referring to Islamic philosophy, a separate discipline known as falsafah.

Among the leading factors behind the demise of kalam was an anti-theological school of thought that opposed the classical theological enterprise as it responded to a range of sociopolitical concerns, principally from the seventh to tenth centuries (CE).  This movement, known as the Athariyya, stressed strict adherence to the literal outward meanings of the sacred texts. For the Atharis, human reason cannot be trusted in matters of religion, thus making theology a sinful (even satanic) and dangerous exercise in human arrogance. Following the demise of kalam, Athari thought has flourished and, I argue, contributed in important ways to the reformulation of Islamic political theory in the twentieth century commonly known as “Islamism.”

This new Islamic polity borrowed heavily from modern European political ideologies and centered on the so-called “Islamic state.” In this book, I propose a new definition of Islamism, articulated in great detail, as the marriage of Athari-imposed creedalism and the modern-nation state. The turmoil and bloodshed that the Muslim world endured in the early centuries, out of which the dominant schools of Sunni theology (e.g. Ash‘arism and Maturidism) eventually emerged with important resolutions, is now being forced to play out once again, with the most dangerous elements emanating from those factions opposed to theology as a satanic force and a deserving prisoner of the “unthinkable.”

For more from this title, please visit Barnes & Noble or Amazon

Related posts:

1. Why Some Islamists are Violent and Others Aren’t by Steven R. Corman For some time people who think...
2. Why “Moderate Islam” is the Wrong Language by Mark Woodward* The terminology used in English and other...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Apparently I wasn’t the only one thinking about the diplomatic potential of Muslim hip-hop when I posted a blog about it for COMOPS Journal back in September of 2009. Recently we heard from Tyson Amir, one of the Muslim artists that I featured in the blog, and he had some interesting news to report. Amir is from San Jose, California, and currently performs with the Remarkable Current Musician Collective, founded by Anas Canon in 2001. As described on the group’s website, Remarkable Current is “an American artist collective consisting of musicians, writers, and producers who are bonded not only by their love for music and art, but also by their shared Islamic-American tradition.”

“Some of the artists that I work with,” wrote Amir, “have actually submitted a proposal very similar to what Jeffry Halverson articulated in [his] article to the US government.” Unfortunately, the government has thus far been unresponsive to the group’s overtures. Amir further added that: “We hoped the US government would be open to allowing us to utilize our art to try to bring about some type of change in the world.”

Tyson Amir in Morocco

In the meantime, Tyson Amir and his colleagues have been going forward without government support. They were on tour in Turkey in 2009, where they recorded a music video for a song entitled “Granada Rap,” a reference to the Andalusian city where Muslims, Christians, and Jews coexisted together in southern Spain before its downfall in 1492. And if you’d like to see the way American hip-hop can appeal to Muslim youths, just take a look at the Turkish kids in Amir’s video: LINK.

“The entire proposal,” Amir further explained, “was based on the State Department’s usage of Jazz musicians in the late 1950s for the purpose of diplomacy; the first artist they sent was Dizzy Gillespie.”

In 1956, the State Department under the Eisenhower administration sent Gillespie to bring the uniquely American art form of jazz to the Middle East, Southern Europe, and South Asia during the height of the Cold War. Other Jazz ambassadors soon followed, including Louis Armstrong, Benny Goodman, Duke Ellington, Thelonious Monk, and Miles Davis. As Dr. Curtis Sandberg of the Meridian International Center has noted: “In this battle for the ‘hearts and minds’ of the world’s peoples, the United States developed an unlikely but remarkably effective response to Soviet initiatives: building international friendships through jazz.”

As Tyson Amir sees it: “In the 1950s we used Jazz ambassadors, today we need hip-hop ambassadors.”

I couldn’t agree more.

Related posts:

1. How Natalie Portman and Johnny Depp Can Save the World by Jeff Halverson In the war of ideas for the...
2. Rap is Da Bomb for Defeating Abu Yahya by Jeffry Halverson In the September 10 cover story on...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

In the war of ideas for the “hearts and minds” of the Muslim world, cultural diplomacy can go a long way. The US government may not be very popular abroad, but our cultural products certainly are. Many Muslims hate our policies, but they still love our movies, listen to our pop music, and cheer for our athletes. Extremists, on the other hand, actively try to disseminate monolithic images of “the other” to their audiences. Al-Qaeda loves to reduce Americans to the archetypal “Crusader” with a singular malevolent purpose. Our films, music, arts, and athletes, can profoundly disrupt and subvert such efforts.

In the age of twenty-four hour news networks, websites, blogs and YouTube, there is no shortage of information out there for inquiring minds to consume. To command a sizable audience amidst such a saturated media landscape (mediascape), many outlets have resorted to promoting outrageous opinions and personalities to garner public attention (i.e. ratings and readers). Thus, the outrageous polarized voices of inflammatory right-wing pundits and snarky left-wing cynics have become a daily fixture of our mediascape and the “old school” journalism of Walter Cronkite has been relegated to the News Hour on PBS.

Even a casual glance through the headlines of the major news sites and magazine stands reveals a disturbing preoccupation with stories about people with names like “Snookie” or “J-Lo.”  Judging by these sorts of headlines, one might not think there’s much going on in the world. But according to UNICEF, some 16,000 children die every day from hunger-related causes (1 every 6 seconds). The world spends well over $1 trillion dollars each year on military expenditures.  Every twenty minutes another species goes extinct. And despite the recent attention, people were suffering and struggling in Haiti long before the devastating earthquake on January 12, 2010. So why is the vapid cast of “Jersey Shore” still getting front page attention when the world has no shortage of urgent and horrific matters to report?

People love (even worship) celebrities.

This is nothing new, of course. Some celebrities have even used their cultural deification for good in the world and lent their names and images to important causes. Some of them might adopt causes for publicity or to fix a sullied public image (e.g. Paris Hilton), but I like to believe that most do it out of real compassion for their fellow human beings and the environment they live in. I guess I have “faith” in a few of these “gods.”

Last month, I was part of a planning committee for a grant proposal that would create a major conference on our campus featuring keynote speakers from academia, government, journalism, and the wild world of celebrity-activism. The core idea behind the conference was making specialized academic expertise about Islam accessible to public policymakers and the public-at-large. The inclusion of a celebrity-activist in our proposal was a response to the public’s preoccupation with celebrity-culture and how “ivory tower” intellectuals struggle to get their ideas and perspectives out into the crowded mediascape. After all, how many Americans would even know where Darfur is located if George Clooney hadn’t traveled to see Sudanese refugees with a film crew following him? The “bread and circuses” of the first world are too distracting for most people.

Communicating to a large public audience seems to require the aid of a celebrity spokesperson, ideally one with some credentials and intellectual clout who cannot simply be dismissed for adopting a “pet project.” A lot of NGOs and charities understand this concept. So why doesn’t our government?

No matter how hard they try to be “stars,” congressmen, senators, governors, and other politicians, are not “real” celebrities – although some admittedly exist in both worlds (e.g. Schwarzenegger, Franken, Reagan). President Obama certainly has celebrity status. But if the United States is truly interested in reaching out to the everyday people of the Muslim world and subverting the “clash of civilizations” rhetoric of Bin Laden, Zawahiri, and Awlaki, we need to bring out the big guns of celebrity firepower through cultural diplomacy.

Even people who hate the U.S. government and its policies love American cultural products, including our movies, music, and athletes. It’s easy for Bin Laden to talk about waging holy war on the land of the “Crusaders” George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, but it’s another thing to convince a kid in Cairo or Riyadh to wage jihad on Leonardo Dicaprio, LeBron James, Will Smith, and Johnny Depp. People in the Muslim world, many of which remain under authoritarian regimes, are understandably distrustful of governments and politicians. It’s easy for the Arab and Muslim street to dismiss the promises and claims of a Secretary of State or U.S. Ambassador reading a speech off of a teleprompter beside representatives of an unelected regime. An American movie star visiting a Muslim city with a charming smile and polite handshake would probably do a better job at disrupting the “Crusader” image constructed by al-Qaeda and its affiliates than a thousand government speeches and photo-ops. In 1971, we used table tennis or “ping-pong diplomacy” to improve U.S.-Chinese relations; what are we doing in the Muslim world today?

I propose a large-scale U.S. cultural ambassador program to university campuses and cities throughout the Muslim world. In 2007, the State Department conducted a program in China that featured Cal Ripken Jr. and organized youth baseball clinics in four cities. This was too brief to be truly effective. And as much as I love baseball, it is not a popular U.S. export to the Muslim world. So an extension of this program to a country like Syria or Jordan would likely be ill-advised. In terms of athletes, we’d be better off sending stars from the NBA – maybe the kids in Amman would enjoy seeing a dunk contest. Basketball is much easier to set-up and play than baseball – especially in crowded, impoverished and arid cities. Movie stars also need to be enlisted. American movies are everywhere. When I lived in Cairo, there were American movies on broadcast television a couple of times a week. The biggest obstacle might be convincing American movie stars to participate between awards ceremonies.

It is equally important to point out that this sort of cultural diplomacy needs to go both ways. There are a lot of people in the United States who – out of fear, ignorance, or anger – carry disturbing attitudes about Muslims that influence our public discourse and the conduct of our elected government (for the worse). These folks likely won’t listen to an informed professor down at the local university or pick up a copy of his or her over-priced academic hardcover at the bookstore, but they might show up to hear Natalie Portman talk about these issues and share her personal insights as someone who has worked and lived in the Middle East (Portman is Co-Chair of a village banking program with Queen Rania of Jordan). People might also sit down in a theater together to watch a play performed by American and Muslim actors, like the brilliant Ghassan Massoud of Syria. American audiences would undoubtedly find it hard to see the zealous jihadi of their fears in an actor creating a work of art on stage beside their fellow countrymen.

In all, the last thing America needs to do is allow U.S.-Muslim relations to be dictated by or restricted to the events on the battlefield when we are all a part of so much more than the characters imagined by both sides of the “War on Terror.”

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Geert Wilders is a Dutch parliamentarian and head of the Party for Freedom (PVV).  He is also a very clear opponent of Islam.  Most critics of Islam are very careful to say that they oppose “radical Islam” or “Islamism” or “Islamic extremism,” but have no problem with the religion as a whole.  Not Wilders.  He has made it clear in no uncertain terms that he “hate[s] Islam.” He has compared the Qur’an to Mein Kampf, referred to Islam as fascist, and made a film, Fitna,(“discord” in Arabic), that juxtaposes passages from the Qur’an with images of 9/11, the Madrid bombings and other acts of terrorism.

Normally, unless their words lead directly to violence, advocates of hate can be dismissed.  Wilders gets a little more attention because he is an elected politician and is adept at using the media to promote himself and his beliefs.  Recently two things occurred that raised Wilders’ status.  First, he was banned from entering the United Kingdom.  This was seen by many (not just his supporters) as a violation of freedom of speech.  The ban was later overturned.  Second, Wilders was charged with violating hate speech laws in his native Netherlands.  Once again, Wilders is crying foul and saying his freedom of speech is being violated.  Wilders’ trial began January 20th.

The issue of Geert Wilders boils down to one of hate speech versus free speech.  Certainly one should be allowed to express one’s opinion freely and without fear of prosecution, but there are hate speech laws for a reason.  If Wilders’ intent is to bring about hostility toward a group (Muslims) then his speech is “hate speech” and the prosecution is justified.  If it is merely criticism, and not intended to cause harm to anyone then it is free speech and the prosecution is unjustified.  However, Wilders seems to want to make his trial not just about free speech but about Islam as well.  In a statement to the court Wilders said:

This trial is obviously about the freedom of speech.  But this trial is also about the process of establishing the truth.  Are the statements that I have made and the comparisons that I have taken, as cited in the summons, true?  If something is true then can it still be punishable?  This is why I urge you to not only submit to my request to hear witnesses and experts on the subject of freedom of speech.  But I ask you explicitly to honour my request to hear witnesses and experts on the subject of Islam.  I refer not only to Mister Jansen and Mister Admiraal, but also to the witness/experts from Israel, the United States, and the United Kingdom.  Without these witnesses, I cannot defend myself properly and, in  my opinion, this would not be a fair trial.

Among those Wilders wants to call as “experts” are Robert Spencer, Wafa Sultan and Andrew Bostom, all of whom are highly critical of Islam.

The Wilders case illustrates a larger problem in Dutch society, and potentially across Europe.  While approximately five percent of the Netherlands is Muslim, they are increasingly victims of prejudice and even persecution.  Filmmaker Theo Van Gogh was killed by a Dutch Muslim (of Moroccan decent) over his short film, Submission,which crudely criticized Islam’s treatment of women.  Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a native Somali and former Dutch parliamentarian went into seclusion for a period and has since had significant security because of her statements about Islam (she was the writer of Submission).  These acts have in turn lead to an increase in attacks against Muslims in the Netherlands, including the burning of a Muslim school among other acts of violence.  Muslims in the Netherlands have a very low voter turnout rate.  They tend to be insular and stay within their particular communities, causing them to identify more and more with their  religion and less with their ethnicity or nationality.

A pattern has developed over the past ten years or so that goes as follows: A prominent non-Muslim figure speaks out against Islam, a Muslim reacts, sometimes violently, leading to more statements and actions against Islam, again a Muslim reacts, and so on.  All the while the Muslim community begins to turn further inward and embraces the status of a marginalized outsider.  The alienation of the Muslim community will obviously only create more strife and tension.  If this pattern continues, things will only get worse in the Netherlands, for both Muslim and non-Muslim alike.

The real issue in the Wilders case is one of motivation.  What is the purpose of his statements?  What is the strategic goal of this level of discourse?  Osama Bin Laden, Ayman Al-Zawahiri and others use language like “infidel”, “crusader” and “apostate” to define their enemy in terms of “otherness.”  Once the designated (often abstract) enemy is seen as a violent oppressor it is easier to recruit followers and continue the cycle of violence, or so the theory goes.

Wilders seems to be the flip side of the coin.  His statements are attempts to define Islam not just in negative terms, but as a threat that should be met with violence.  He seems to desire a “clash of civilizations” much like Bin Laden.  Otherwise what is the point of his speech?  Obviously there is not going to be a mass exodus of Muslims from the Netherlands, nor are they going to convert to Christianity en masse.  So if violence is not the point, what is?

When a Muslim extremist commits an act of violence, many in the West call on extremist Muslim preachers to be held accountable for their inflammatory rhetoric.  This trial is the Dutch people calling Wilders out.  If his language is something beneficial to the people of the Netherlands, then he and others like him need to prove it by clarifying their goals.  Otherwise they are doing nothing but furthering the cycle of animosity and violence.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.