SHOKRY’S LEGACY:

REACHING OUT TO MODERATE ISLAM

 

Islam is not a monolithic religion, any more than Christianity or Judaism are.  Despite the efforts of some to control religious practice or theological interpretations, there will be various groups that interpret their religions somewhat differently from others in that religion.

 

That seems rather trite; but for some reason, we hear entirely too much by those who purport to speak for all of Islam, or by those who purport to speak out against all of Islam.   Both positions should be avoided.  However, it is understandable that this is happening, in an age where Saudi oil wealth has been funding the most radical Wahabist or Salafist tradition in Islam, and when certain political leaders are perverting Islam by trying to enlist it in their political wars of survival and conquest, rather than adhering to a division between Mosque and State.

 

To the extent that we are bullied by those whose position is that any criticism of any part of Islam is racist and Islamophobic, we have ceded the moral high ground to the least ethical in Islam.  Since Muslim societies are comprised of both a religion and a culture, and any particular culture governs the way in which the religion is practiced, we can, and should, reach out to, and support, those moderate cultures that practice a moderate Islam, and deprecate, without fear of allegations of racism, those extremist cultures that abuse substantial portions of their populations in the name of religion.

 

Just one example at this point:   The participation rate of Malaysian Muslim women in business life in Malaysia compares favorably to the participation rate of American women in business life in the U.S.   Hence the fact that Muslim women in Arab countries have minimal participation rates says more about Arab Muslim culture than it does about the entire Muslim religion. We must not taint all of Islam with abuses emanating from just one part;  conversely we must not whitewash all of Islam either – we must reserve the right to demand that religious fundamentalists who arrive on our shores allow cultural freedoms that are outside the proper realm of religious dictates.

 

I know moderate Islam. I know that full devotion to a Muslim faith is not incompatible with tolerance, respect for diversity, friendship and a separate involvement in both Mosque and State.  How do I know?   Because of my friend Shokry, that’s how.

 

Shokry was the client and friend about whom I wrote in Chapter One.  Shokry’s heart failed on a pilgrimage to Mecca, and he died.  But while Shokry’s heart was, in a physical sense, faulty, in a moral sense, his heart was golden.   There was no hate in Shokry’s heart.  There was no bitterness, no attempt to blame others for anything that happened to him, his family, his community, his people.   Shokry showed me that an ardent commitment to Islam could well co-exist with the best values of tolerance, respect for diversity and respect for Western values.   Shokry and I were friends long before Islamism reared its ugly ideological head.   We were friends before Egypt starting broadcasting a version of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion on its government controlled television station.

 

Shokry was from Alexandria.   His wife, Hend, came from an upper middle class family, and she had gone to a private school, with both Christian and Jewish friends at school.  Both had an appreciation for history and culture. Yet both were extremely devout Muslims.

 

Both worked extremely hard. Their eldest son is a doctor, two daughters are teachers.  We accepted our differences, but understood that our different ways to invoke the Divine were less important than the goodness and decency that a worship of the Divine was calculated to bring to our daily lives.

 

No religion should be made a mere tool for political goals.   This is a bad time in the History of the world, not only because of those who are abusing religion in the course of political and military struggles; but also because of those who would disarm us of the right to criticize those who do so.   There are significant groups of people in our society who view as “racist” any attempt to critique the abuse of religion.   But surely it is not racist to argue about the proper role of religion, any religion, in politics. Surely, as a Jew, I am not limited to discuss Rabbinical attempts to control politics, and I should be able to generalize the argument to Catholic Priests, Protestant Ministers, and Muslim imams and mullahs.

 

If I was friends with Shokry, and I am friends with other good-hearted Muslims, and yet I do not like those Muslims who intimidate and threaten me with violence because of my good faith exercise of freedom of expression, I am not a racist.   And I know that Shokry, if he were alive today, would agree with me.

 

There are many analysts, more learned than myself, who are writing books and articles about whether there is something inherently violent in Islam itself, or whether it just the way it is being interpreted in other circles.   I know what Shokry would say, and I know he would be right.

Then, there is my friend Gehan Sabry, a gentle Egyptian lady who founded a magazine called Cross Cultures, based in Kitchener Ontario Canada.   This magazine was founded in 1991, and I wrote many articles for it in the early ‘90s. The mission statement of this magazine, which features articles about various ethnic communities, is “"Promoting harmony through knowledge and better understanding".  Gehan and her husband, Hashem, live according to this statement.  She states, “The magazine promotes harmony through better understanding between the different cultures and faiths of Canada, by exchange of knowledge and dialogue … Cross Cultures does not take any stand on issues, instead we welcome freedom of expression for all.”   I maintain that if Shokry could live the way he did, and Gehan can do the marvelous work that she does, then we should reach out to them.  We should state loudly and clearly who is promoting harmony, and reward them.  Likewise, we should state clearly who is promoting discord, and do what we can to delegitimize them as spokesmen for anyone other than their narrowly based hatemongering groups.   We must back the moderates, we must support them against the tactics of intimidation used by the Islamists.  We must support them when Islamists try to take over their mosques or corrupt their children in the name of Islam.

Read carefully the wise words of a Professor of Islamic Law from UCLA, Khaled Abou El Fadl, writing in the Boston Review.   I believe in the sincerity of these words.  I do not believe that they are just some “trick” to be used in taking over our world.  These words are wise, and we should reach out to Professor El Fadl, the same way that I reached out to Shokry:

“Ultimately, the Qur'an, or any text, speaks through its reader. This ability of human beings to interpret texts is both a blessing and a burden. It is a blessing because it provides us with the flexibility to adapt texts to changing circumstances. It is a burden because the reader must take responsibility for the normative values he or she brings to the text. Any text, including those that are Islamic, provides possibilities for meaning, not inevitabilities. And those possibilities are exploited, developed and ultimately determined by the reader's efforts—good faith efforts, we hope—at making sense of the text's complexities. Consequently, the meaning of the text is often only as moral as its reader. If the reader is intolerant, hateful, or oppressive, so will be the interpretation of the text.

“It would be disingenuous to deny that the Qur'an and other Islamic sources offer possibilities of intolerant interpretation. Clearly these possibilities are exploited by the contemporary puritans and supremacists. But the text does not command such intolerant readings. Historically, Islamic civilization has displayed a remarkable ability to recognize possibilities of tolerance, and to act upon these possibilities. Islamic civilization produced a moral and humanistic tradition that preserved Greek philosophy, and generated much science, art, and socially benevolent thought. Unfortunately, however, the modern puritans are dissipating and wasting this inspiring moral tradition. They are increasingly shutting off the possibilities for a tolerant interpretation of the Islamic tradition.

“If we assess the moral trajectory of a civilization in light of its past record, then we have ample reason to be optimistic about the future. But the burden and blessing of sustaining that moral trajectory—of accentuating the Qur'anic message of tolerance and openness to the other—falls squarely on the shoulders of contemporary Muslim interpreters of the tradition.”

In January, 2007 a debate took place in London England between London mayor “Red” Ken Livingstone and American Islamic historian and Middle East scholar Daniel Pipes.

Pipes had been warned that by venturing onto Livingstone’s “home turf” he risked being set up for a torrent of abuse showing how he was the typical “American neo-con” attempting to uphold a simplistic view of a “clash of civilizations” while Livingstone could appear as the proponent of peaceful relations through “multi-culturalism” and an appreciation that Muslim violence was a just reaction to American and Israeli actions.  Livingstone even repeated at the debate his vile assertion that Israel “should never have been created” (thus providing the ideological underpinnings for its destruction).

Pipes, however, showed why he is a leading voice of reason and understanding when it comes to dealing with those who would use Radical Islam to erode our rights and freedoms.  Pipes began by rejecting the premise of a "clash of civilizations," explaining that the issue is not a clash of civilizations but "a clash of civilization and barbarism."

Pipes stated that "world civilization can exist [if one means] something worthy, decent or humane; the opposite of barbarism."   Then, to bolster this point that a wide consensus exists regarding the basic concept of civilization, Dr. Pipes presented passages from the Bible and Qur'an, along with French, British, and American maxims.

He cited the historical threats to the world which emanated from Fascism and Marxism-Leninism, placing in this context the present threat of radical Islam, which he defined as a radical utopian interpretation of Islam that seeks to impose Islamic law universally, further explaining that its goal is to attract talented individuals, take over states, dominate domestic life, aggress against neighbors, and eventually engage in a cosmic confrontation with the West.

Beila Rabinowitz has recently summarized Dr. Pipes words at the debate as follows:

Dr. Pipes challenged the mayor's multicultural impulse of "the right to pursue different cultural values subject only to the restriction that they should not interfere with the similar rights for others," arguing that Livingstone's multicultural approach was fatally flawed. He noted that the mayor - who boasted that tolerance had been a major factor in attracting new residents to London - presided over a city that served as "a safe haven for world-wide terrorism," turning Britain into a significant base for terrorism.

He pointed out that British based terrorists have carried out operations in at least 15 countries: Pakistan, Afghanistan, Kenya, Tanzania, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iraq, Jordan, Israel, Algeria, Morocco, Russia, France, Spain, and the United States.

In Pipes' view, the way to combat this problem is to facilitate the "emergence of a an Islam that is modern, moderate, democratic, humane, liberal, and good neighborly, one that is respectful of women, homosexuals, atheists [and] one that grants non-Muslims equal rights with Muslims."

In closing, Dr. Pipes stated that "Muslims, non-Muslims and people on the right and left would agree on the importance of working together to attain such an Islam," adding that "to the extent that we all work together against the barbarism of radical Islam, a world civilization does indeed exist, one that transcends skin-color, geography, politics, and religion."

He expressed the hope that the mayor "can agree here and now to cooperate on such a program."

I suggest that these are wise words that should allow us to properly conceptualize the task in front of us.

As for Mr. Livingstone, here is an account by Daniel Johnson of the New York Sun:

Mr. Livingstone's world is one gigantic conspiracy, with American neoconservatives pulling the strings. The Cold War was, he said, a conspiracy cooked up in Washington in 1943, just as the war on terror was devised by a "nexus around the White House and Wall Street." He stopped short of claiming that the CIA had ordered the September 11 attacks, but they had certainly created Al Qaeda. The state of Israel was an American conspiracy too: It "should never have been created" but the Americans, who of course control the United Nations, set it up on Arab land because they and the British were too anti-Semitic to accept Jewish refugees in their own countries. This is pretty rich coming from Mr. Livingstone — the mayor who was censured by his own party for abusing a Jewish reporter as a Nazi concentration camp guard.

Such fantasies are as commonplace as his assertions of moral equivalence between the "crude Islamophobia" of American neoconservatives and Islamist terrorists. But when Mr. Pipes pointed out that the Americans would have been mad to invade Iraq for the sake of oil, since the predictable effect had been to raise oil prices, the mayor replied that "the people in the White House were mad" and went on to make the apocalyptic prediction that if the war on terror continued, there would be "casualties in the tens of millions." The audience did not know what to make of this, and gave the mayor a distinctly muted response.

Unfortunately, the mainstream media all but ignored the event.  Outside of some 12 or 15 Internet Blogs, you would think the event never happened. Why doesn’t this surprise me? Just like my treatment in Canada, Dr. Pipe’s valiant efforts in London are outside the predominant left-liberal ideology, and, astoundingly, are not deemed worthy of reporting.  What should have been seen as the single most important debate of our times was ignored. 

I suggest that the words of Professor Al Fadl and the words of Dr. Pipes on the topic of Islam’s role in the world today, and on separating Radical Militant Islam from moderate Islam, should be front and centre in this debate.  That they are not gives this Second Generation Radical a pessimistic view on the ability of moderate civilized debate to make a difference in resolving the terrible events of our time.

More radically, I suggest that the problem in the world today does not even rest with the majority of Muslims;  it is more a problem of how the majority of Western political and intellectual elites have uncritically led the West to a submission to a political agenda of certain Muslim elites, those elites being the radical Islamists.

Let me explain.

The “conventional wisdom” is that the one issue that would “transform” the relationship between the non-Muslim world and the Muslim world is a “settlement” of the “plight” of the Palestinians.

Hence, we are counseled on a daily basis that Israel (increasingly viewed as a “danger to world peace” by Western intellectuals) has to be pressured for this or that “concession”.  This continued, even in the face of the patent absurdity of this position, in the face of what happened after Israel unilaterally, with no diplomatic quid pro quos, vacated Gaza. 

Since there are no democracies, and no reliable opinion  polls in the Arab world, we are asked to uncritically accept as the truth the notions of what is believed by the masses as articulated by people like Yasr Arafat or any of the collection of Islamist and non-Islamist anti-liberal dictators or monarchs ruling the Arab world, and much of the wider Muslim world.

The Iranian journalist Amir Taheri, now based in Europe, has an interested “take” on the selectivity of Muslim indignation when Muslims in other areas are persecuted.  In a December, 2004, column in Jerusalem Post, Taheri writes of the general disinterest in Muslim media outlets when, in southern Thailand in 2004, 500 Muslims were killed, including some 80 suffocated in police buses, in suspicious circumstances.   Moreover, few Muslim newspapers bothered to report that Thailand was building a wall to fence in the almost two million Muslims in Southern Thailand, which wall was higher and longer than Israel’s much maligned “security fence”.

Taheri points out that India, for all the anti-Muslim actions (including the demolition of the Ayodhya Mosque) taken by some of its citizens, remained on friendly terms with many Muslims states, because of its role in the non-aligned movement, whereas Pakistan, a Muslim state, suffered in its popularity because of certain of its ties to the United States on security cooperation after 9/11.   In addition, he argues, not one Muslim state recognizes the Muslim republic of the Turks in Cyprus, because Greece has always tilted to Palestinian causes while pro-Nato Turkey is an American ally.   Most important of all, look how the Russian Putin, who massacred so many Muslims in Chechnya, has received massive displays of affection in the Muslim world.

While these facts are known by many, the two conclusions drawn by Taheri, are fundamentally radical:

Firstly, he shows that Muslim indignation is not automatically stirred up by violence or prejudice against other Muslims. Ordinary Muslims are fundamentally not part of a clash of civilizations, but neither are they part of a literate, liberal and open society.  The issues that are most important to the average Arab, and for that matter, the average Muslim, relate to making a decent living, and supporting and educating their families.   The same is not true among the Arab elites, however.  According to Taheri:

“The reason why the elites fake passion about (the Israel) issue is that it is the only one on which they agree. In many cases, it is also the only political issue that people can discuss without running into trouble with the secret services.”

Of course, we could also say that this issue is used to direct the dissatisfaction of the masses away from their leaderships and towards Israel and America.

Taheri dares to draw a conclusion which is so radical, but so fundamentally important, that Second Generation Radicals, especially those in the United States, must certainly take note:

“Conventional wisdom …insists that the US is hated by Muslims because it is pro-Israel.  That view is shared by most American officials posted to the Arab capitals.  But is it not possible that the reverse is true – that Israel is hated because it is pro-American?”

The second main conclusion drawn by Taheri is no less important:  Muslim elites are inclined to pursue, amplify and increase their anti-Israelism and anti-Americanism, because “it is the one issue on which the elites feel that they have the sympathy of the outside world.”   Just look at the fixation of the United Nations and the NGOs on Israel compared to any of the many countries where more serious human rights abuses, violence and even genocide are taking place today. 

As proof, Taheri offers the anecdote that in his conversations with Arab elites, he “found almost no one who, speaking in private, had any esteem for Arafat.  But all felt obliged to hide their thoughts because Arafat had been honored by French President Jacques Chirac.” (emphasis added)

We must, then, confront the ugly truth: the massive anti-Israelism amongst Muslims in the world today, has been as much fueled by European and other anti-Americanism and anti-semitism, as it has been an indigenous and popular-based ideology.  There is nothing inherent in Islam that it must create a “clash of civilizations”; the problem is now, and has always been, (back to when the Mufti of Jerusalem allied himself with the Nazis) that Europe in its long-standing cultural anti-semitic sociopathy allied with its phobia of American power, has enamored itself with the most dangerous and dysfunctional Muslim leaders.

The United Nations Human Rights people, and the perverted NGOs from the 2001 Durban conference, are not the solution to the Middle East problem – they are the cause of it. The European leftists and their allies across the world, including the Universities in North America, must understand this sooner or later.  We, in the Second Generation, must transform the debate, so that the interests of European radicals and Arab dictators and Islamists are secondary - while the interests of the average Muslim and average Arab to live productive lives, with dignity, with the ability to care for and educate their families, become primary.  If we in the Second Generation can show that we in fact respect the Arab masses more than their leftist Western apologists and their corrupted dictatorial leaders, then we can participate in the greatest peacemaking ever seen in the modern era.