|
Scholars under siege by Abid Ullah Jan The deepening controversy about the Daniel Pipes nomination to the board of the United States Institute of Peace is both interesting and alarming. Interesting in the sense that a person who is usually the source of controversial issues on Muslims and Islam has now himself become a controversial issue. It has also set off alarm bells by virtue of the issue's potential to put not only the credibility of many scholars but also the basic values of American democracy at stake. Thanks to a never-ending controversy, a few Muslims have endorsed the nomination of Daniel Pipes. Everyone is entitled to his opinion. However, we need to analyse the post September 11 environment in which Muslim scholars in particular feel very uncomfortable in taking a stand on issue such as the Pipes nomination. Extreme and often unfair criticism of Islam and Muslims is the hallmark of Daniel Pipes' career. His McCarthy style blacklist-campaign against the very discipline of Middle Eastern studies for being pro-Palestine and critical of Israel is also well known. Many American Muslims see the nomination of Pipes, who believes only in a military solution to the Middle East crisis, as a slap in the face of peace itself. Over the years, Pipes has blurred the distinction between himself and those he describes as "men of violence in Islam." The only difference is of the words and deeds. The loss of thousands of innocent lives on 9/11 in the U.S. and in the subsequent period in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere is nothing but translation of Daniel Pipes' kind of views into reality by Muslims and non-Muslims. What else could prove this point better than his own words that the only solution to the Middle East problem is Israel's total military victory? Other than extermination of the Palestinians, Israel has, undoubtedly, achieved total military domination. His views, such as "the Muslim world today is comparable to Nazi Germany," or "the Koran is a not 'a product of Muhammad or even of Arabia,' but a collection of earlier Judeo-Christian liturgical materials stitched together to meet the needs of a later age... A few scholars go even further, doubting even the existence of Muhammad" [1] make the Muslim distaste for Pipes well known. CAIR has launched many campaigns against him. Recently two distinguished Muslim commentators, Hussain Haqqani and Akbar S. Ahmed have published articles, which can be interpreted as endorsing Pipes and most shockingly his viewpoint as a legitimate academic and scholarly position. Mr. Haqqani argues that Pipes' work could become a source of "free flow of ideas within the Muslim community." Writing in the Wall Street Journal (May 22), Mr. Haqqani presented the Pipes nomination as "a test of strength for those Islamists who wish to paint the war against terrorism as a war against Islam." Interestingly, those who consider the war against terrorism as a war against Islam are silent on this issue. It is the besieged Muslim scholars and liberals left in the US who are having a test of their strength so far. Keeping scholarship and the range of issues discussed by Daniel Pipes in mind, one can safely argue that opponents to his nomination are not "trying to limit the scope of debate about Islamic issues within parameters set by them." Their objective simply is to avoid embracing both Muslim and non-Muslim extremes, which became the source of 9/11 and the counter-bloodshed since then. Ahmed in his Daily Times column (July 5) writes that the Pipes "appointment was bound to raise discussion and debate," because he "is a well-known scholar in the field." Pipes, of course, is not the only well known person in this field. After a few circuitous arguments, Mr. Ahmed comes to the point: "He became an important voice to those parts of the media who tended to depict Islam in a negative light." The admission is enough to show the value of Mr. Pipes' scholarship and the kind of debate he could generate. The key question is: What is happening to American public domain that compels Muslims to endorse anti-Islam polemicist despite the so obvious lack of justification? Is there pressure on American Muslims to endorse non-Muslim extremists of one kind while condemning extremists of another kind? Articles such as those by Haqqani and Ahmed will hurt the legitimacy of Muslim scholars within their own community. Why are they taking such a big risk? Given the way most of the academia feels about Daniel Pipes, these Muslim scholars are also risking alienating themselves from prominent academics and the Middle Eastern Studies Association, which is under attack from Pipes and his colleague Martin Kramer. This is a time when American Muslims are seeking to distance themselves from extremism and are seriously trying to build bridges with different groups in America. But the example of Haqqani and Ahmed may suggest to them that this is a slippery slope. It leads to the acceptance and endorsement of extremely anti-Muslim positions. It may seem that in an attempt to prove their moderate credentials Haqqani and Ahmed may have burned their bridges with the Muslim community and precluded the building of bridges between Muslims and others in America. In a free country, people should be free to express their views. If Haqqani and Ahmed have expressed their support for Pipes freely then I fear for their credibility, and if they have done so under some kind of pressure, I fear for America's democracy. Abid Ullah Jan is the author of "A war on Islam?" published by Polity Press. His latest book, "Democracy and the Challenge of Islam" is currently under printing in Canada.
|