In 2000, the American-Muslim community bloc-endorsed Republicans b/c Bush promised a repeal of the Secret Evidence Act. At that time I thought this was a mistake. Especially since black-Muslims (as opposed to immigrant Muslims), stuck with the Democrats. [Some of the largely Arab Immigrant Muslim leadership felt that Liberman was going to be more pro-Israel than any Republican - so that was an issue as well]. Needless to say, the younger generation of American Muslim (immigrants) thought the bloc-vote was wrong and expressed their contempt by voting for Nader. In the end, nothing good came out of it. Professor Sami Al-Arian, formerly one of the most active of the immigrant Muslims in the Bush camp, ended up with the entire DOJ going after him. Not only that, but his son was thrown out of a meeting with Karl Rove due to "security concerns." But even aside from him, the single Muslim aide in the White House was dismissed after 9/11.
In 2004, Muslims really didn't have a collective voice and voted on an anti-Bush platform.
There are two camps in American-Muslims. One, which just wants to be left alone, make its money, not be harassed from the authorities, and for America to take a peaceful approach to the rest of the world. It will pretty much vote for anyone who assures them these things.
The other, to which I belong, is the more "engaged" American Muslim, who is aware that in some cases America does have to intervene (Bosnia), who agrees that civil liberties are important, but who also wants to take a measured but tough (not belligerent) stance against Muslim extremism (both in its international and domestic variety). We are Muslims who feel that while Islamic theology doesn't need a `reformation' (largely because we are fideistic), its social, legal, and culture components certainly need overhaul. We disapprove of the way Muslim tyrants, terrorists, and demagogues are treating the rest of Muslims (and the world). We disapprove of the way they exclude women, gays, and minorities from discourse in the Muslim world, and how they stifle creativity and enterprise within American-Islam by having a myopic vision of what it means to be a "good" Muslim.
For holding these anti-orthodoxy views, we are often co-opted by the right. In fact, if you look around, all the "Muslim reformers" out there are in the pocket of the right. This includes people like Hrsi Ali and Wafa Sultan. It includes Irshad Manji and used to include the so called progressive Muslim magazine: Muslim Wake Up (who love going on Fox news - although I hear they've learned their lesson).
Look, I am one of those people who don't want to be co-opted by the right, although I think it has been incredibly instructive and enjoyable to discuss matters with people who self-identiy with the right. While me and the right may share interests (fighting Islamic extremism), I know that the right is using what I am saying to advance its neo-conservative agenda which puts the short term goal of `peace' over the long term goal of 'solutions.' (I think initially AEI and even Bush had a long term view but that no longer holds). It uses my critique of Muslim practices as a way to demonize Muslims. Certainly I don't believe that all members of the right act and think the same. However, instructive to me was my blogosphere popular post on British Muslims [ http://eteraz.wordpress.com/...] which was a sincere and broad brushstroke of the British community, yet in the conservative circles, it was only lauded for its suggestion that foreign policy is not the only thing that makes Muslims angry, and nothing about its constructive elements was heard.
Yet, at the same time, it is only the right which is listening to progressive Muslims talk about sex slavery, illegal polygamy (yes, within America), the fact that Wahhabi literature pervades our American mosques. I can assure you I don't belong in the right. I do not celebrate Islamphobia. I do not think that branding Muslim organizations "Islamist" as an epithet really leads to constructive engagement, nor does it provide for the next generation of Muslim leaders to take over the organizations and fix them. Nor am I particularly pleased with the conservative economic agenda (too much spending), its social agenda (what exactly is selective federalism i.e. Schiavo), and its support of tyrants in the Muslim world who more than any other element are responsible for breeding terror. Yet, today, the only time a Muslim critique of Muslims gets any play is if its picked up by a conservative.
Should American-Muslims like me just become Democrats? How does being a Democrat jive with the things I am most active and capable in: 1) exposing Muslim extremists, 2) not being in bed with Muslim tyrants, 3) engaging the Muslim world with the underlying assumption that Enlightenment thinking whether through intellectual smuggling or through blatant polemic needs to be made part of the Muslim discourse, 4) actively and affirmatively creating the conditions for democracy and republicanism in the Muslim world, 5) washing our American-Muslim dirty laundry in public, 6) protecting civil liberties, and 7) the freedom from political correctness. From my experiences with Democrats, which I admit are very few and far between (I grew up in many red states), except for Number 1 and 6, most Democrats are likely to consider my views synonymous with neo-conservatism or right-politics (by being wont to assume that since I am antagonizing a majority of orthodox Muslims I am giving fodder to the right wing Islamophobes). I do think, however, that because so many of these issues are rooted in social justice, progressives, when able to separate that these have been issues co-opted by the right, will flock to them (and may implicitly support them already).
It is possible that I may already know the kind of people who I am looking for. People who call themselves `classic' liberals (as opposed to Progressive liberals). This would, I imagine, include people like Dean Esmay, and Armed Liberal at Winds of Change. However, the fact is, that some of these `classic' liberals (like Dean), are burdened by a little thing called the War on Iraq. In their formative period, many of the classic liberals supported the War on Iraq for any number of reasons. Either they accepted that there were WMD's or that the War on Terror had to be broadened to include Iraq even as the havens of terrorist training and terrorist spirituality, Pakistani madrassas, and Saudi Arabia, remained intact. Not only that, but the classic liberals are equally gung-ho about invading Iran, which to me, is completely unreasonable, in light of the fact that 1) they should have been this gung-ho about it back when they were busy supporting the War on Iraq and 2) opening another theater of war, this one with 60 million nationalist Persians armed with resistance Shia theology, will require somewhere close to a trillion dollars in expenses and the likely need to deploy the entirety of our reservists and potentially the use of a draft (unless of course they just want to begin unceasing aerial bombardments on Iran, which will likely lead Iran to mobilize Syria and Hezbollah). In other words, I do not agree with the classic liberals on Iran and I doubt that any of the American-Muslims that I roll with, would either.
So herein lies the conundrum for a progressive Muslim (which is the next generation of immigrant American Muslim):
- Classic Liberals: Pros: Receptive to reformist/progressive Muslims, understand that engagement with political Islam, using the vocabulary of Islam, is the most potent defense against terror. Cons: Original sin of supporting War on Iraq. Led astray by their equally hawkish view towards Iran. Do not concede that spreading democracy by fire is the same as British imperialism. Whether its motivated by compassion or self-interest, the conditions for democracy do not come about through the use of bullets. Not only that, violence only makes the descent into anarchy (terror) even easier. Finally, there is too much ambiguity amidst the Classic Liberals as to their views on civil liberties.
- Progressive Liberals: Pros: Receptive to Muslims in general with open arms, were anti War on Iraq; do not want to attack Iran; and are against Muslim tyrants. Very clear pro-Muslim on civil liberties. Cons: instead of putting money and ideas into an information war, will probably treat the tyrants through isolation. A bit too hands off with respect to the kind of literature and recruiters coming in from the Muslim world. Too likely to blame terror on poverty. May have a residual antipathy towards people who self-identify via their religion as opposed to secular Humanism or Marxism. Way too stuck up i.e. afraid of non-PC language
- Right (I use this term even though I should probably split it into neo-conservatism and Reagan Conservative). Pros: give air to the opinion of progressive Muslims. Are faith based people. Cons: one immediately gets the feeling that one has been used. Their faith is Christianity. There are other things I could write in Pros and Cons but this is a post about whether there is place in the center-left for progressive Muslims.
Cross posted at my blog where it was linked to by Winds of Change and many classic liberals left comments, and I encourage you to do same.
http://eteraz.wordpress.com/...