On the Muslim Brotherhood

I know this is late, but I don’t think the Brotherhood will stay out of the news. Juan Cole describes the Muslim Brotherhood.

Islamic Center Update

The debate over the Islamic Center in downtown Manhattan has gotten out of hand and almost nobody looks good. President Obama's support was weak (supports their right but won't speak about the wisdom of building there). This Wall Street Journal Op-Ed says all the right things but has a conclusion that doesn't fit with the rest of the piece - calling for it to move somewhere else. In fact, the only bright spot has been John Stewart and the Daily Show for mocking all those opposed.

So many people are tired of this debate and might accept if the Islamic Center moved. However, if the center acquiesced and moved, it would empower the groups that are opposing new mosques in places across the country. After all, if Islam equals terrorism, who would want a mosque in their neighborhood.

There have been a lot of comparisons between 9/11 and the community center to Nazis and the Holocaust and Japan and Pearl Harbor. Although maybe it shouldn't need to be said, I'll say it anyway. The main difference between those examples is that the Nazi party was without a doubt responsible for the Holocaust and the Japanese government at the time did call for the attack on Pearl Harbor. So not wanting a Japanese flag at Pearl Harbor might makes sense.

However, the religion of Islam was not responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001. The people who carried out the attacks were acting in the name of Islam - but most agree they were acting under a corrupt interpretation of Islam.

Of all the articles and opinions, this op-ed in the WSJ by Ayaan Hirsi Ali is probably the most destructive to the debate. Now, I don't know a whole lot about Hirsi Ali. I have read some reviews of her books, but never read the books themselves. I know people who have read the books and been inspired, but from the little I know, I have been concerned about her anti-Islam message. So the Op-Ed doesn't surprise me.

What is most regrettable about her op-ed is that it talks about a clash of civilizations, but is vague on exactly what she means. A column like this should be very explicit, lest it mislead people and come off more extreme and violent than it means to be (or maybe it means to be). I understand the column to say that we cannot hope to mix and live in tolerance with Islam. Instead, there are always clashes of civilizations, this is one, and we need to win. I think the only way we win is not by changing hearts and minds, but by destroying or eradicating Islam.

Again, her column is hopelessly vague, so maybe it is not as extreme as I think. But if so, she needs to be way more specific. (I have been noticing a lot of articles lately, on a variety of issues, that have a lot of words but make vague points and no recommendations.)

If her column is saying that, then I would very strongly disagree. So many seemingly intractable clashes have been worked through in time. Catholics and Protestants live in peace even in Northern Ireland and Europe moved passed its anti-semitism. You might argue that the last example is a bad one. I would disagree. There were those saying a conflict was brewing between Jews and non-Jews. While the Nazi party tried to eliminate the Jews, they were unsuccessful and now that clash is a thing of the past. It is an important lesson in history, but not now a clash of civilizations.

Where I might agree with Hirsi Ali, if this were what she were saying, is that there will always be clashes of some kind because there are always people that seek violence and destruction for one reason or another. What we must realize, is that we are opposing those people and those means, but not the ideologies they pervert and use to justify their means.

Policy Towards Iran

As the election situation in Iran continues, it is important I think to take a step back and think about how Iran fits into the Middle East. There was an interesting, although overly simplistic, article in the Atlantic this month about the interplay between Iran, Sunni Arab nations, Shiite nations, Palestine and Israel. The author of the article suggests that we can use the threat of a nuclear Iran to unite Arabs and Israelis and achieve peace between Israel and Palestine.

The author correctly describes the triangle in the Middle East between Sunnis, Shiites, and Israel. Each group hates the others, but depending on power dynamics may be willing to work with one to team up against the other. Right now, Sunni Arab nations are concerned about the growing influence of Shiite Iran and now a Shiite-lead Iraq. And they are especially concerned about a nuclear Iran.

Now, while I agree that this situation exists and can be exploited, I doubt that it is as likely a possibility as the author thinks it is. I think Israel is entrenched in their position as are the Palestinians.

But more importantly, I think it is dangerous to operate this way. By supporting and uniting Sunni Arab states and Israel against Shiites, we would be taking a side in a centuries-long struggle between Shiites and Sunnis against the Shiites. During this struggle, Shiites have long been oppressed, and remain so in majority Sunni countries (although some are finding their voice in some degree in Afghanistan).

The beginning of Vali Nasr's book The Shia Revival shows us how in the past we were united against Shiites (supporting Iraq's Sunni dictator against Iran in a brutal decade long war), and how we ultimately regretted that after 9/11. So while I agree that Iran has long been belligerent towards the US, which is partly but definitely not entirely our fault, we should not push us into once again aligning with Sunni autocratic states. It is short term pseudo-solutions like this that prevent long term lasting solutions.

Book Report: Shia Revival

I finished reading The Shia Revival by Vali Nasr. The book mostly focuses on the conflict between Shia and Sunni faiths, with an emphasis on Shiaism, and includes a brief history of Islam (again, with a focus on Shiaism). The book is well written and so it was a quick read.

I learned two main things from this book. First, our understanding of the Middle East and their politics, as covered in the press, is highly skewed. Who we see as the villains and heroes depends on who likes us and who does not. In the past we have seen Iran as a villain and Saudi Arabia as a hero. In fact, as 9/11 taught us, it should be the other way around. We even judge Iran's democracy more harshly because of our relationship with them and yet don't judge Saudi Arabia's repressive government.

The author sees all developments in the Middle East through the lens of Shia and Sunni interactions (conflicts) and that other issues are often pawns in that interaction. An Iraq with closer ties to Iran can counter strength of Sunni governments, whose oppression and intolerance have a negative impact on the region (which is not at all how the US press sees it). Also, the Israel / Palestine issue is manipulated to garner popular support and strength in the region.

The book manages to provide a much more nuanced, and less negative, view of Shias and Iran specifically. Unfortunately, I do not think Americans are ready to accept that view.

The second thing I learned was of course how similar Islam and Christianity are when you contrast their histories. Both religions have had to respond to oppression against their faithful. Early Christians choose martyrdom (a really good analysis of the Gnostic Book of Judas suggests the author believed that martyrdom was against God's will - leading sheep to the slaughter) as a way to promote the faith. In the face of oppression, Shias have at times chosen martyrdom (as the celebration of Ashora remembers) at times modified their faith, and at times simply withstood the oppression.

Both faiths have had to deal with modernization as well, although it seems Islam has had the greater challenge since the modern world has seemed to leave Muslims behind. This debate largely revolves around traditionalism versus change. The faiths also face(d) conflicts over who should lead the faith and who should lead the government - and whether those two should be the same.

The issue that really struck me though was how the religions debate internally whether individual piety or social justice is more important - essentially whether the faith should be inward looking or outward looking. Around the 1950s, Shia clerics argued that the faith was too focused on piety and did not do enough to fight for changes to make people's lives better. Through these teachings, these Shias were arguing for revolution and social change - some argued in support of communism.

This book is a must read because it can both humanize Shias and help people to think about our role in the Middle East differently. We should be supporting states based not on their rhetoric towards us, but how their actions affect us and their own people. Also, by better understanding the power plays between Sunnis and Shias, we can better manage issues and conflicts in the region.