Mohammed Sharif*
University of Rhode Island
Introduction
The Western policy in general and the US policy in particular towards the Muslim world are based on presumptions and analysis about the Muslim world that do not stand the test of reality. In the aftermath of the Islamic Revolution in Iran, the Western scholars and commentators had a common theme in their analyses and discussions-Shiism is the militant brand of Islam; therefore, the West should do everything to curb the growth and expansion of that ideology. The September 11, 2001 bombings led the Western experts to scurry around for an explanation; all sorts of theses were put forward and finally the consensus emerged-it is the Wahabism that promotes extremism and enjoins practice of violence. Then there is the clash of civilizations theory1 that pits Islam-not just Shiism or Wahabism-against the West for an ultimate civilizational war.
These arguments have profound influence on the Western policy towards the Muslim world. Although it is not officially acknowledged, the policy, as I will show in this paper, reflects their implications. Thus the Islamic revivalism that is sweeping throughout the Muslim world is painted with a broad brush as an expression of the Muslim population's preference for radical Islam and is dubbed as Islamic fundamentalism that is most of the time equated with terrorism.
In a recent electronic publication, Alam (2002) has examined Huntington's thesis from the historical perspective-he convincingly shows that Huntington's logic is basically flawed and does not square with historical facts.2 My objective, in this paper, is to examine the other aspect of the issue-the influence of Western perception of Islam on its policy towards the Muslim world and then to identify the undesirable effects of this policy for both the West and the Muslim world. After all, it is one's perception of the reasons or facts, not the reasons or facts themselves that determine one's decisions for policy or actions. Moreover, one's historical experience determines how one perceives the contemporary events. In this respect, I intend to show that the Western policy towards the Muslim world is based on a false perception-judging Islam by the yardstick of Western experience with religion in the Middle Ages-and therefore, is counter-productive.
The policy is counter-productive because it provides all-out support to the oppressive autocratic rulers in Muslim countries to promote secularism. Logically, opposition to the policies of autocratic rulers develops and grows and the rulers get more autocratic and oppressive in dealing with this opposition, because they do not feel the need to dialogue with the opposition; in the process the moderate majority gets eliminated from the process as there is no dialogue and a small minority with extreme views comes into play and takes up the cause of the people. The disastrous consequences on both Western and Muslim world of this extremism of a small minority autocratic rulers and of a miniscule minority opposition do not need elaboration after September 11, 2001. I intend to discuss this contention and suggest recommendations for a productive policy that will be beneficial for both the West and the Muslim world.
The Ghost of Islam
Because of the historical experience of the West with religion, the Western mind is set against the use of religion in any public decision making process. Secularism separating the church and the state has become not only the law, but also the norm of the society. The West not only practices it, it preaches it to the rest of the world as the best and only viable system. Although the Western leaders talk about establishing and fostering democracy in other countries and advocate the importance of liberty and freedom for the people of those countries, what in essence they care for most is the establishment of secularism; liberty and freedom of the people and democracy at best take the back seat in their agenda for other countries.3
In this respect, the West finds the Muslim world a serious challenge, as Islam does not separate the spiritual from the material life. For the Muslims, Islam is an integrated social, economic, and political system; moreover, it is a culture and civilization that flourished and contributed significantly to the world civilization under the framework of an integrated system at least for a significant part of the history of Islam. Added to this is the resurgence of Islamic revivalism throughout the Muslim world that emerged from Western colonial domination-a clamoring for the establishment of Islamic system. This unnerves the Western leaders much. To a Westerner, this idea is repugnant and is equivalent to turning the clock backward and reverting to the Dark Ages of medieval Europe, of Inquisition, of stagnation, of thwarting of scholarship and science, and of denial of liberty and freedom.
The Western mind shudders at the thought of losing everything gained through the Reformation, Renaissance, and Industrial Revolution. To an average Westerner, secularism is the steppingstone of Western civilization ushered in by the European movements of 15th and 16th centuries.
These explain why the Western powers support the autocratic rulers in the Muslim world, and replace or aid in replacing democratically elected governments. The US support for the so-called 'military' democracy (?) in Turkey and for the 'dictatorial' democracy (?) in Egypt, and the French support for the 'military' democracy (?) in Algeria are examples of blatant disregard for democracy and human rights. This is the reason why the USA has wonderful relationship with all the kings. The US support for Saddam Hussein of Iraq before the Gulf War was meant to weaken the Islamic Iran and the policy of containing Saddam Hussein, not replacing him, since the Gulf War is also meant for the same purpose.4
What other reasons can one find when the democratically elected government of Turkey is dissolved by the military and its leader is put behind bars the Western powers keep completely silent and keep supporting the military democracy? How can one explain the silence of the West when the Algerian military suspends the second round of election because the pro-Islamic party wins its first round? Could anybody explain why the West does not say anything about the Myanmar Muslims who have been thrown out of their country and are languishing in refugee camps in Bangladesh, about the Moro Muslims who have been fighting for autonomy for a long time, or about the Kashmiris who have been fighting for independence for half-a-century, but justifiably explodes in support for the East Timorese? Why does the US blame for violence the Palestinians only who have been living under occupation for decades?
Not only that the Western government policies are biased against the Islamic people the Western activist organizations are also predisposed by this perception. While the women's rights organizations have been justifiably vocal and active against the Taliban government policy towards women, they are conspicuously silent about the plight of a large segment of the Turkish women who are deprived of their right to education and jobs because they choose to wear headscarves. More seriously, when an American-Turkish woman runs for the Turkish Parliament and wins the election with overwhelming support of the voters, she is not allowed to take the oath and is driven out of the Parliament because she wears a headscarf.5 To my knowledge, neither a Western government nor any Western women's rights organization so far has said anything against these actions of the autocratic rulers of Turkey.
These are only a few examples of how the West treats the issues of concern in the Muslim world-it sees Islam as a threat to secularism, so its policies and actions both public and private are directed towards supporting secularism even at the cost of democracy, freedom, and human rights; in essence, the West sees a ghost in Islam.
The Demon of Secularism
The Western policy of secularizing the Muslim world has become a double-edged sword for both the Muslim and the Western world. Actually secularism has become a faith, a religion, and to use Sojourners editor Jim Wallis's phrase, 'secular fundamentalism.'6 Thus secularization of the Muslim world has become an objective the Western powers want to achieve at any cost, even at the cost of denying the people their fundamental rights to democracy, liberty and freedom, and most seriously their human rights.7
The democratic process is perceived not to help secularization as majority of the people choose in elections Islamic oriented leaders to govern their countries.8 The Western governments, therefore, opt for autocratic rulers to implement their agenda, either bolstering the existing autocrats or installing new autocrats by toppling democratically elected governments. Either way, the result is the same-a small segment of the society, about five to fifteen percent of the population in most of the cases, rules the rest of the society, forcing so called secular modernization, in essence, Westernization. This attempt to force the transformation on the population by a small minority, no matter how powerful it is, has disastrous consequences-it brings the dominated majority into sharp conflict with the ruling minority and in the process makes the rulers more autocratic and oppressive, thereby turns them into demons of secularism.
In this respect, toppling in 1953 of the democratically elected government of Dr. Mohammad Mosaddeq of Iran and reinstallation of the Shah are actions that cannot be lost sight of. The Shah did everything to Westernize the society even forcing women surrender their headscarves to the police who then ripping them apart in front of those women.9 He also achieved great economic success, however, depriving the people of their basic rights to freedom and liberty, trampling their cultural values, and oppressing them for their demand for democratic rights. The ultimate result is the Islamic Revolution deposing the Shah and establishing the Islamic rule, and because the USA was supporting the Shah in all his deeds and misdeeds, creating unprecedented anti-American feelings in the people.
The Kemalist experiment of Europeanizing Turkey for three-quarters of a century is another example of failed attempt at secularizing a Muslim society by force. The failure of the secular leaders in achieving progress has convinced a continuously growing segment of Turkish population to look for an alternative to the Western system-they are actually looking for that in their successful Islamic past.10 The military rulers are finding it difficult to stop the changing tide even using extreme measures including depriving women of their right to education and jobs for showing up with headscarves.11 The rulers are so scared by the changes that they even stop the organizations linked with anything Islamic from helping the earthquake victims.
This process of autocratic ruling has two undesirable but very predictable results: Elimination of the process of democratization of the society and the creation of a violent extremist minority. As the autocratic rulers are supported by the Western powers economically, militarily, and diplomatically, their position in power is more or less secured and therefore, they do not feel the need to communicate with the opposition, make any compromises, and even serve the interest of the people. They simply serve their personal interest and that of their foreign masters, thus becoming very corrupt. This alienates almost the whole society against them; however, any criticism or expression of opposition to their policies is ruthlessly suppressed. The rulers thus become more autocratic and oppressive. The first casualty of these actions is the elimination of the moderate majority from any kind of public including political discourse, thus foreclosing any potential for the growth of democracy in the society.
Since the environment of constructive public discourse is almost completely vitiated, extremism grows in the vacuum-a small minority willing to face up to the oppressive rulers if necessary with violence emerges in most of the cases. The bloody civil war in Algeria that has cost the lives of over 60,000 people since the cancellation of the second-round election, the violence in Egypt, the killings of the Kurds in Turkey, and that of the Kurds and Shiites in Iraq are illuminating examples.
Added to this is the blatant indifference of the Western powers to the long-drawn sufferings of the Muslim population in different parts of the world and in certain cases sufferings inflicted on them directly by the Western powers. Kashmir and Palestine are the cases at hand where the United Nations has been very clear in its mandates but the Western powers either have done nothing to implement the mandates or dragged their implementation in various ways. The cases of Bosnia-Herzegovina where the West was too late to intervene, Chechnya where Russsia was given the free play to decimate the population in the city of Grozny, and the autonomy struggle of the Moros in Philippines are some of other areas of Muslim grievances. The imposition of comprehensive economic sanctions on Iraq is one of the most egregious actions taken by any power against any population in human history12 that has resulted in the death of over a million innocent people most of whom are children. Worst yet is the public declaration of 'killing half-a-million innocent children of Iraq as the price worth paying.'13
A snapshot of the enormous sufferings inflicted on the Muslims by this policy can be found in the data on refugees compiled by the US Refugee Committee. While the Muslims account for only 21 percent of the world's population, they suffer 69 percent of the refugees. The situation is worse for the Middle East-although Middle East accounts for less than six percent of the world's population, it suffers 42 percent of the refugees.14 This information indicates the extent and magnitudes of sufferings of the Muslims-people running out of their homes and becoming refugees in other countries for fear of their lives, in short, they are terrorized out of their own lands.15 The figure on the number of people losing their lives in the Muslim world during the past few decades as a result of this policy cries out the desperate situation-the number is estimated at over four million. Although I do not have figures on the number of people maimed and homes burned in armed conflicts, the figures on the number killed and those turned refugees provide a good indication in this respect also. No wonder this environment of enormous sufferings would breed extremism and violence!
It is important to note that even the extremist groups in these trouble spots started as moderate humanitarian and social organizations. The Hamas in Palestine is an important case at hand-even the Israeli government helped its growth with both economic and logistic support. It is the Israeli occupation and oppressive measures that turned this organization into what it is today. The Moros of Philippines fought peacefully for a long time for their autonomy, not independence. It is the sufferings and frustration that led to the demand for independence by the Moros and the growth of extremism of the Abu Sayyaf group, a fringe group whose violent actions do not have the support of the general Moro population.
The Western policy of seeing the ghost of Islam and creating the demon of secularism in the Muslim world in the form of supporting the autocratic and oppressive rulers, the indifference of the West to the long-drawn sufferings of the Muslims in different parts of the world, and worst of all, the direct infliction in others of immeasurable sufferings and death to Muslim populations by the Western powers are responsible for the creation of an environment ripe enough for fringe groups of extremists to rise. These groups play the champions of the people and act violently;16 the moderate majority are helpless by-standers of extremism of these groups similarly as they are helpless by-standers of the autocratic rulers' oppressions.
Islamic Fundamentalism or Revivalism
To the average Westerner, however, the extremism of these fringe groups is the extremism of the general Muslims, thanks to the spins set by the Western governments and their network of autocratic rulers and the constant bombardment of stereotypes of the Muslims by the Western media. Thus any violent action perpetrated by anybody anywhere in the world, Islamic terrorism is the familiar tune played over and over again in the media, obviously with enormous damage to the Muslim population-in the aftermath of bombing of the Morrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995, 200 Muslim homes were vandalized in the USA, in addition to depressing psychological effects on all the Muslims. Even legitimate expressions of grievances by the oppressed Muslim populations against their governments and other perpetrators are condemned as acts of fundamentalism. Worst of all, freedom of expressions and works of scholarship are termed fundamentalist if they criticize the existing World Order from an Islamic perspective. Most ominous is the labeling by the Western henchmen autocratic rulers of Muslim countries of any opposition to their oppressive rule as fundamentalist. Thus the Islamic revivalism currently sweeping the Muslim world is dubbed as fundamentalism that is generally equated with terrorism. 'Governments in the Middle East, both Arab states and Israel, play on such fears', writes Esposito, 'warning of the dangers of "fundamentalism," domestically and internationally. � The "fundamentalist" threat, described monolithically and equated solely with radicalism and terrorism, becomes a convenient pretext for crushing political opposition, nonviolent as well as violent, and backing away from previous commitments to democratization or greater political participation. � "Islamic fundamentalism," has become a primary excuse for Israel and Egypt to attract foreign aid or excuse human rights records of abuses. Fear of fundamentalists coming to power has often influenced European and American attitudes towards Turkey, Bosnia, Chechnya, Central Asia and more broadly, the promotion of democratization in the Muslim world.'17
Islamic fundamentalism, however, is a revivalist movement taking place throughout the Muslim world to establish following the tenets of Islam a democratic and just civil society free of oppression by replacing the foreign-dependent autocratic, to use the popular phrase used by the people in most of these countries, thuggish rulers. Esposito (1999) in his book, The Islamic Threat: Myth or Reality, and Lawrence (1998) in his book, Shattering the Myth: Islam Beyond Violence, provide exhaustive analyses of the movement and its historical development.18 It is the frustration of the Muslim population with the economically stagnating, socially chaotic, and politically suffocating condition prevailing in their countries, deriving from first the colonial rule and then the Western-dependent autocratic rule by a small minority of Westernized secular leaders, that obviates the growth of the movement. 'If Muslims have been subjected to structural violence like others, the common victims of [Western] economic and political hegemonies,' write Piscatori and Eickelman, 'they have not, however, lost control over their destinies. Indeed, to grant that they possess agency, the means to respond to the challenges and dilemmas of modern life, is to recognize the analytical and policy significance of what is evocatively called "Islamic difference."'19 In this sense, Islamic revivalism embodies in it the aspiration of the Muslim population to free themselves from this structural violence and to have a society where they will be able to enjoy what the people of any civil society enjoy-a democratic political system with liberty and freedom free of oppression. Since the Western system has failed them and failed them miserably, they are looking for that in their successful past.
The Western imposition of the concept of fundamentalism on this revivalist movement is predicated by the basic difference between Western and Islamic political system-the Western system is secular, but the Islamic system is based on the moral values codified in the Qur'anic injunctions. Thus the West considers the potential of Islamic political system a threat to the Western system and its concept of modernization that holds secularism as a sine qua non for its achievement. Therefore the label of fundamentalism is pasted on anything and everything that talks about Islam, especially in the public arena, as Islam is anti-secularism. At a more operational level, it is imposed on anything that is perceived anti to Western hegemony of the world order. As the Islamic system is different from that of the West, the revivalist movement is considered to be a fundamentalist movement offering a challenge to the West.
Islamic Pluralism
The Western perception of Islam as an anti-democratic and exclusive system, denying liberty and freedom, thwarting scholarship and science, and trampling progress is misplaced and unfounded. This perception comes mostly from the Western experience of medieval Europe and its own creation of 'mimetic nationalism' of the post second World War Muslim world.20 I will make my arguments in terms of both the Qur'anic injunctions and historical lessons of Islam. I will also supplement my contentions occasionally with examples from the Tradition of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).
The Qur'an calls Islam a universal way of life for all of humanity-the addresses God uses in the Qur'an are: 'Oh humans!' 'Oh the children of Adam!' and 'Oh believers!' and not once God uses the address 'Oh Muslims!' Thus Islam and its injunctions setting the foundations for Islamic systems are for all of humanity, not just for the Muslims. Muslims are the ones who willingly-without being compelled by anybody, any authority, or any system-accept the One and only God as their sole Master and follow these injunctions in living all aspects of their earthly lives and thereby establish on earth peace with justice for all. The concept of community (the ummah) Islam implies for its followers is not territorial, ethnic, or racial, it embraces all of humanity based on this faith and its practice. Thus it is foundationally different from the Western community of nation state-it is more fundamental and broad in addressing the issues of humanity, in essence, more pluralistic than that of the West.
It is very important to understand that the Islamic injunction of establishing peace with justice is peace with justice for all of God's creation generally and all of humanity specifically, not just for the Islamic ummah. The Qur'an is categorical when it says, 'There is no compulsion in matters of the way of life' (2:256) and 'And if thy Lord had willed, whoever is in the earth would have believed, all of them, all together. Wouldst thou [Oh Muhammad] then constrain the people until they are believers?' (10:99). These verses not only recognize the importance of freedom of will for the humans, but also emphasize the acceptance by the adherents of Islam of diversity as a natural and integral feature of God's creation. Therefore, diversity in Islamic systems is not only to be tolerated but also to be accepted, and it is to be accepted as a rule, not as an exception. This point is obvious in the following verse, 'Oh humans! Verily, We have created you from a single pair of a male and a female and then divided you into nations and communities so that you may celebrate each other [not to despise each other]' (49:13). The Islamic systems enjoined by these verses are all-inclusive and pluralistic, contrary to the Western perception of being exclusive. The following citations from Prophet Muhammad's sayings reinforce this contention: 'All creatures of God form the family of God and he is the best loved of God who loves best His creatures.' 'Oh Lord! Lord of my life and of everything in the universe! I affirm that all humans are brothers to one another.'
A system does not become really pluralistic until it discharges justice universally in the cause of humanity. The Qur'an declares, 'Oh you who believe! Stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to God, even though it be against yourselves or [your] parents or [your] kindred, whether [the case be of] a rich man or a poor man, for God is nearer unto both [than you are]. So follow not the lusts [of your hearts] lest you lapse [from truth] and if you distort [justice] or decline to do justice, then [remember] God is verily ever Informed of what you do' (4:135). Perhaps the following verse makes the nature of Islamic pluralism more compelling, 'Oh you who believe! Stand out firmly for God as witnesses to fair dealing and let not the hatred of others to you make you swerve to wrong and depart from justice. Be just: that is next to piety, and fear God for God is well acquainted with all that you do' (5:8). Extending the enemy the same right as is granted to the members of the ummah and applying the same set of standards is pluralism at its best Islam enjoins.21 In a timely volume, The Islamic Roots of Democratic Pluralism, Sachedina (2001) very effectively elucidates these points.22 The fact that Prophet Muhammad did not appoint a successor and left it to the community to choose its leader is sufficient an evidence that Islam is democratic.
There are substantive differences between Islamic and Western pluralism, however. The Western pluralism theoretically accepts the equality of humans, but in practice does not recognize the limitations of the system to ascertain this equality; it simply assumes that human biases either do not exist or do not influence the outcome. Thus in this system the majority rules, and in the majority decision-making process, the minority aspirations most of the time get lost, be it ethnic, racial, or religious. This is the reason, for example, why it took the Civil Rights Movement for the African-Americans to get their voting rights in the USA, the rights pre-granted by Islam. More seriously, it is next to impossible for a member of a minority to get elected to the office of the president or the prime minister of the nation.
In this respect, the objectivity of Islam is exemplary-Islamic pluralism establishes the concept of human equality not just by stating it in theoretical terms, but by molding the human mind to practice it as a tenet of faith, and then devising the system free of the effects of human biases. This system does not simply pretend that human biases do not matter it recognizes it and faces it squarely-permitting full autonomy to the religious communities including the Islamic community to run their affairs, not just the practice of religion, according to their own customs, traditions, and laws, electing their own leaders, and having their own judicial systems; the state's responsibility is to ensure that these systems function harmoniously to the benefit of all the member communities of the state. Thus an Islamic state is federalist in nature, it not only accommodates the values of others it creates a harmonious pluralistic society for the fulfillment of the aspirations of its member communities. The agreement signed by the Prophet with the Jewish community of Madinah is a clear example of this federalist system. Although subsequent Muslim rulers have not been exactly Islamic all the times and their practices varied, the treatment of minorities has been exemplary.23
It is this pluralism along with other characteristics of Islam that has been the driving force behind the contributions Muslims made to the world civilization. But for the Muslims the contributions made by the Indians and the Greeks would have been lost probably forever is a conclusion generally reached by the Western scholars. The names of the subjects such as, algebra, chemistry, philosophy, et cetera and Arabic numerals are bright seals of Islam on modern science and scholarship, contrary to today's Western perception of Islam as anti-scholarship and anti-progress. Perhaps a few citations from the Qur'an and the Prophet Muhammad's Tradition would illuminate the contention: 'Read: In the name of your Lord Who created, Created humans from a clot [of blood]. Read: And your Lord is the Most Bounteous, Who taught by the pen, Taught humans that they knew not' (96:1-5). Starting the revelation of the Qur'an with these verses talking about reading, writing, and the science of the creation of humans could not highlight more the importance of science and knowledge in Islamic way of life. Thus the Prophet of Islam said, 'To seek knowledge is obligatory for every Muslim man and woman' and 'Seek knowledge, if necessary, in China.' These are categorical injunctions about the importance of knowledge, scientific or otherwise.
Conclusions
The causes of the unhealthy condition prevailing in the New World Order relating to the Muslim world are analyzed and directions for corrections are provided. The Western perception of seeing the ghost of Islam and the resultant policy of creating the demon of secularism in the form of oppressive autocratic rulers are considered to be responsible for this condition. These autocratic rulers feel secure in their position of power as the Western powers support them economically, diplomatically, and if necessary, militarily. So they do not feel the need to dialogue with the majority opposition and ruthlessly suppress any criticism of their policies. The policy thus almost completely eliminates any potential for the growth of democracy in these countries depriving the majority population of their basic liberty, freedom, and human rights. As the condition derived effectively removes the majority from any public discourse, extremism grows-small fringe groups of extremists, willing to face up to the oppression of the autocratic rulers, if necessary with violence and beyond the borders of their countries, rise.
The nature of the Islamic revivalism that is taking place throughout the Muslim world is then discussed and its implications for the world polity examined. It is shown that the revivalist movement is not the fundamentalist terrorism of these fringe groups; it is a logical reaction of the people to the failure of the Western-dependent secular system in offering them a society free of oppression and stagnation. Thus it is an expression of the people's genuine longing for progress, freedom, and liberty through the establishment of democracy. As the Muslims have a history of successful past with respect to its civilizing contributions to the world, they are looking for that in Islam.
Examining the characteristics of Islamic systems, I have shown that the Western fear of Islam as exclusive is unfounded and misplaced-the fundamental sources of Islamic knowledge, the Qur'an and the Prophet's Tradition, and the practice of Islam strongly suggest that Islam is more inclusive and pluralistic than the secular pluralism of the West. The scholars of Islam have an important responsibility in exposing this aspect of Islam not only to the non-Muslims to mitigate their fear, but also to the emerging leaders of the Muslim world to pave the way for the establishment of a true Islamic state that will be just and harmonious for all the communities. An important objective of this exposition would be to eliminate the possibility of the growth of extremism in the name of Islam to replace the extremism of the secular rulers. In this process, however, the Western leaders must change their policy of supporting the autocratic rulers, basically an anti-people policy, to a policy of fostering democracy and freedom, a pro-people policy. This is the best policy of national security the West is yet to understand; I recommend it very strongly and expect the West to be very pleasantly surprised with the results in the near future.
Notes
1Huntington, Samuel (1998), The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order; Touchstone Books.
2See Alam, M. Shahid (2002), http://www.counterpunch.com/alampeddle.html.
3Another reason for not preferring democracy for other countries is the difficulty of manipulating a democratic government to serve the interest of the West. It is easy to dictate an autocratic ruler of a country-the autocrat does not have the support of his people and therefore relies on foreign powers for economic, military, and diplomatic support. See Sharif, Mohammed (2000), Are the Muslims Terrorists? The Western Policy towards the Muslim World; Middle East Affairs Journal, Vol. 6, No. 3-4, pp.173-186.
4See Pilger, John (2000), Paying the Price: Killing the Children of Iraq; A Documentary, 75 Minutes, London.
5Merve Kavakci is the woman who now lives in Texas, USA. See her interview published in Impact International, Vol. 31, No. 3, March 2001.
6See Fundamentalism and the Modern World, A Dialogue with Karen Armstrong, Susannah Heschel, Jim Wallis, and Feisal Abdul Rouf, Sojourners, March-April, 2002.
7See Lawyers' Committee for Human Rights (2002), A Conversation with Moncef Marzouki, http://www.lchr.org/defender/middle_east/marzouki.htm, New York, February 13.
8Algeria, Indonesia, Iran, and Turkey exemplify the contention.
9See Karen Armstrong's interview published in Sojourner listed in note 6.
10See the cover story in Impact International, Vol. 30, No. 8, August 2000.
11Emin, Recai (1999), My Dear Girl! Madam Professor! Let's Talk about Hijabphobia; Impact
International, Vol. 29, No. 3, March.
12These sanctions are against the innocent people of Iraq who are already brutalized by Saddam Hussein.
Saddam Hussein and his henchmen are prospering under these sanctions. See Arnove, Anthony (2000),
Iraq under Siege-The Deadly Impacts of Sanctions and War; South End Press, Boston.
13Madeline Albright to Leslie Stahl on 'Sixty Minutes' in 1996. The action continues in spite of statements
by UN weapons inspectors that Saddam Hussein's capability to produce weapons of mass destruction is eliminated. See Ritter, Scott (2001), Don't blame Saddam for this One, Guardian, October 19.
14See US Committee for Refugees, 1998. The situation since then has gone even worse.
15People become refugees for economic reasons also; however, it is not the case for the Muslim refugees.
16This, however, does not mean that they are the ones who cause most of the terrorist acts in the world. With the exception of September 11 and earlier East Africa bombings, the US State Department data show that the Muslims were responsible in 1997, 1998, and 1999, respectively, for 3.25, 4.5, and 6.5 percent of all the terrorist attacks against the US interest throughout the world.
17See Esposito, John L. (2001), Islamic Values Are Compatible with Western Values, in Hurley, Jennifer A. (ed.), Islam: Opposing Views, Greenhaven Press, San Diego, p.28.
18Esposito, John L. (1999), The Islamic Threat: Myth or Reality? Third Edition, Oxford University Press,
New York and Lawrence, Bruce B. (1998), Shattering the Myth: Islam Beyond Violence, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
19Piscatori, James and Eickelman, Dale F. (1998), Foreword, in Lawrence cited in note 18, p.xiii.
20Lawrence uses the phrase 'mimetic nationalism' to describe the political system in the post war
independent Muslim countries shaped after the secular European model. See the citation listed in note 18 (p.47).
21Compare this with the way the US government is treating the Alqaeda and Taliban prisoners-detaining
them in chains in open-air cells.
22Sachedina, Abdulaziz (2001), The Islamic Roots of Democratic Pluralism, Oxford University Press, New
York.
23See Sabella, Bernard (1994), Christians in the Holy Land, The World of Islam Festival Trust, London.
Also see Lewis, Bernard (1984), The Jews of Islam, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
