Author: Hussain Haqqani
Publication: Wall Street Journal
Date: May 22, 2003
URL: http://www.danielpipes.org/article/1101
Some Muslim groups in the U.S. have
launched a campaign to block the appointment of Daniel Pipes to the board
of the United States Institute of Peace. The USIP is a taxpayer-funded
institution with a mandate to promote "peaceful resolutions of international
conflicts." Mr. Pipes, a Bush administration nominee, is a scholar of Islam
and the Middle East and an outspoken critic of militant Islamists.
Although the Washington Post, among
others, has editorialized against his appointment, the controversy should
be seen in the context of the civil war of ideas in the Muslim world --
between those who wish to reconcile adherence to their faith with modernity
and those seeking the restoration of a mythical glorious past. The Pipes
nomination has become a test of strength for those Islamists who wish to
paint the war against terrorism as a war against Islam. If they can rally
American Muslims to their cause, they would be able to limit the scope
of debate about Islamic issues within parameters set by them. That objective
doesn't serve the interests of the U.S. or of Muslims.
Many Islamic revivalists, or Islamists,
have turned to terrorism in an effort to destroy the West's military, economic,
cultural and technological domination. Above all, they resent and resist
the free flow of ideas within the Muslim community and with the West. In
dealing with terrorism, the U.S. cannot afford to ignore the ideas -- and
the lack of openness in Muslim discourse -- that generate terrorist thinking.
While his detractors label Mr. Pipes an "Islamophobe," the tussle is less
about Daniel Pipes and more about the terms on which the U.S. should engage
the world's Muslims, including many American citizens. Mr. Pipes is probably
not always right in all his arguments. As a Muslim, I disagree with several
of his policy prescriptions. But his views are neither racist nor extremist;
they fall within the bounds of legitimate scholarly debate.
Muslims have suffered a great deal
from their tendency to shun discussion of ideas, especially those relating
to history and religion and their impact on politics. Hard-liners won't
tolerate questioning of their views that Islam has nothing to learn from
"unbelievers" or that Muslims have a right to subdue other faiths, by force
if necessary. The notion of an Islamic polity and state -- supported by
extremists, questioned by moderates -- is also an issue which must be aired.
Promoting such debate should be an essential element of U.S. engagement
with the Islamic world. That objective is better served by including and
debating the ideas of intellectuals such as Mr. Pipes than by attacking
them.
Americans are keen to understand
why some people hate them enough to want to fly planes into buildings and
blow themselves up while trying to kill civilians. But similar introspection
is missing among Muslims. Shouldn't they be asking themselves why it's
difficult for them to criticize terrorism without fearing that they'll
be labeled anti-Islamic? Just as the U.S. needs to understand why Muslims
resent its power, Muslims must figure out why they cannot win America's
trust and respect.
Islam's external enemies, and their
real and perceived conspiracies, are the focus of most discourse in the
Muslim world. Colonial rule and, since then, injustices meted out to Muslims
under non-Muslim occupation in several countries are real issues that need
to be addressed. But the failure of Muslim societies -- in particular the
leaders -- to embrace education, expand economies or to innovate cannot
be attributed solely to outside factors. The root causes also lie in the
fear of some Muslims to embrace reasoned debate and intellectual exchange,
lest this openness somehow dilute the purity of their beliefs.
The campaign against Mr. Pipes is
an example of this tendency to scuttle discussion. Muslims who disagree
with his views should respond to him with arguments of their own. Slandering
him might help polarize secular and Islamist Muslims, but it won't raise
the level of discourse about Islamic issues. It's time for Muslim leaders
in the U.S. to break the pattern of agitation that has characterized Muslim
responses to the West.
Mr. Haqqani, a visiting scholar
at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, served as adviser to
Pakistan's Prime Ministers Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif.
