Distortions Of Progress

All too frequently, the media sensationalizes non-stories as they attempt to whip up anti-Islamic fervor in the name of ratings. FOX News ran a story headline Sunday: “Islamic Law’s Influence in America a Growing Concern.”

What exactly is the concern? Apparently, some taxi drivers in the U.S. decided not to carry passengers with alcohol, a university installed taps for Muslim worshippers to wash their feet before prayer, and a company decided to give their employees a holiday on Eid.

Yeah – real issues to worry about – I don’t know what our free country is coming too when taxi drivers can choose their passengers, a public school helps guarantee freedom of worship, and a corporation acknowledges all religions. That certainly isn’t why our Founding Fathers wrote the Bill of Rights.

This perception of Islam has distorted what the American public views as progress. The media has over-simplified our goals, presenting the idea of a Muslim woman who removes her veil as “progress.” That’s not progress. That’s just a different culture.

I was once propositioned by a woman under a powder-blue burqa on the streets of Kabul. I’m pretty sure it wasn’t the veil that was keeping her in a state of prostitution.

Progress would be if that woman had access to affordable medical care. Progress would be if her children had access to free schools. Progress would be if both she and her husband could earn a living wage. Progress would be if their villages weren’t in danger of being bombed by U.S. drones or held hostage by Taliban insurgents.

Progress would be growth. Progress would be peace. Progress would be a future. Who gives a shit about a veil?

President Obama’s “new” Afghan/Pakistan strategy has the same simplistic view and lacks any fresh ideas as to how we can combat the roots of extremism. Instead, his “new” strategy is simply super-sizing the mistakes of the past 8 years and attempting to reframe the issue with new euphemisms.

The so-called “war on terror” (now renamed, in true Orwellian fashion, the “Overseas Contingency Operation”) continues to view civilian deaths – collateral damage – as acceptable. We continue to fund Pakistan’s military despite knowing that elements of Pakistan’s intelligence forces are supporting Taliban insurgents.

Meanwhile, America keeps trying to convince Afghans, Pakistanis, and other Muslims in developing countries (or occupied territories) that we are just trying to help; yet we refuse to let them help themselves. Islam is always seen as part of the problem – not part of the solution. For nearly a decade, we have attempted to justify our own failures and distract those working for global development by pointing a finger at Islamic piety.

And this is where we have doomed ourselves to failure.

There are so many partners that could help with real progress, but too many of them have been labeled as “too Islamic” and thus a potential enemy. Islam is (like all major religions) built on charity, and there are institutions within many Muslim societies that can act as a partner if given the chance. Unfortunately, our fear has kept us from trusting anything that looks, talks, smells, or even hints at being “Islamic.”

The Indian state of Gujarat is an example of what Islamic organizations can provide if given the opportunity. The city of Ahmedabad was torn apart in 2002 by ethnic and religious riots. (I won’t get into who started it, because like so many other conflicts, it really doesn’t matter. What matters is that a small event escalated and thousands of people were affected.)

After the riots, some of the Muslim population in Ahmedabad was left without homes. Islamic charities stepped in to help. Even orthodox political institutions, like Jamaat-i-Islami, the Pakistani Islamic party with links to militant groups, came to the rescue of the displaced community. They helped reconstruct old homes, set up new schools, and built new communal housing for resettlement. The underlying fear in the Indian government was that the Islamic influence would filter down and create a more conservative, rigid community.

Seven years on, Jawaharlal Nehru University anthropologist Dipankar Gupta writes that fears about rising Islamic fundamentalism have proved to be unfounded. The Islamic institutions have not tried to implement their brand of fundamental religion, but have simply worked to better the lives of Gujarati Muslims.

“Did the [Islamists]…place conditions of a religious nature before they let people into these [resettlement] colonies? None, as far as the residents could recall…[N]obody was tested for orthodoxy before they were allowed in…

The truth is that neither Jamaat-i-Islami nor [other Islamic institutions are] keen on advocating fundamentalist lifestyles. They have no interest in sponsoring madrassas that teach only Arabic and the Quran. Instead they have set up schools that provide secular education…These schools are not a ruse for Islamic organizations, or clerics, to pump religious fervor into Muslim kids.

On the contrary, these Muslim institutions are clear that they want the boys and girls in their care to learn secular sciences and skills and heave themselves out of parental poverty. The curricula in these schools are so designed that they conform to the requirements of the state education board. There would be some religious instructions in these institutions, but they would be on the side, and a minor matter…

The accent is on turning out successful Muslims who can negotiate confidently in a secular world…

Where then is that fundamentalism that is supposedly breeding in the smoldering slums of Ahmedabad? In fact, if anything, it is just the reverse…”

The Obama administration has similar ready-made partners for reconstruction in Afghanistan and Pakistan. America (or NATO) cannot do it alone – and nor should they. Afghans and Pakistanis – and the religious values that are a part of them – need to be integrated into the very institutions that are seeking to help. We need to heed a lesson from the reconstruction of Ahmedabad and stop being afraid of utilizing Islam in development.

But gaining support for such an idea first requires something from the media. We need a media that focuses on true progress instead of culture. We need the anti-Islamic fear-mongering to stop.

We need a media that presents Islam for what it is and what it should be – part of the solution.

Now that would be a truly new strategy for the “Overseas Contingency Operation.”

Wil Robinson
AWOP International Contributing Editor
Author of International Political Will Blog

**************************

Tweeters:
Click the "Tweet This" button and easily send us to your followers on Twitter.

Peace Y'all

Moving Obama Forward

I’m still tentatively problamistic about President Obama – not optimistic, not pessimistic - just assuming the most probable outcome. I won’t say I’ve become disillusioned yet, but Obama is definitely not bringing the kind of change we voted for, especially when it comes to foreign policy.

Obama’s policy on Iraq is virtually identical to what Bush’s was at the end of his term last year: we’re gonna keep some troops, we’re gonna secure our “interests” (read: oil), and we’re never really gonna leave entirely.

But it is in Afghanistan that Obama has really screwed himself. And it seems only now is everyone beginning to realize it. The decision to keep raining airstrikes on Afghanistan and Pakistan in hopes that we can bomb an insurgency into submission is finally being questioned (although many pundits seem to be questioning only “Obama’s decision” to bomb – seeming to ignore the 7 years that Bush first decided it was a good idea). But let bygones be bygones. We’re talking about now – the future – and the way forward.

I first said our policy of airstrikes on villages was doomed for failure last October. Then again here. And here. And also here. Professor Juan Cole alluded to the problem on January 26, just days after the inauguration. Newsweek opined on the issue in late January. The Scholar’s Stage analyzed the issue as well. And a former Pakistan CIA case officer wrote an op-ed for the New York Times last week saying the same thing.

Is anyone in the Obama Administration listening?

Rabbi Michael Lerner, editor of the progressive spiritual magazine Tikkun (check out Tikkun’s wonderful piece on the positive role of Islam in Afghanistan), appears to have some constructive ideas about how we can get Obama’s attention (reprinted in part from an email and available in the March/April 2009 issue).

…[Obama’s] decision to double U.S. troops in Afghanistan is a moral and political disaster. He has neither clearly articulated goals nor a plausible exit strategy, he continues the intellectually incoherent and morally perverse “war or terror,” and he guarantees the death of innocents…

Yet how do we [criticize Obama]?

…[F]or some the answer simply is: “keep quiet, be patient, and in his own time he’ll do all the good things liberals want.”

But that is not how Obama works. It’s obvious from his appointments and his policies that Obama responds more to those outside his camp who make a ruckus of criticism than to those whose support he takes for granted.

To be politically relevant, spiritual progressives have to become visible critics where that criticism is morally required. Yet we must do so in a language that embodies our genuine respect for Obama and our genuine belief that he can be called back to his own highest values.

Our task is to use this extraordinary moment in history…to provide a detailed vision of an alternative…Without that vision of an alternative, progressives and liberals are forced back into the old ways of thinking…

The “something new” is already there…in our religious and spiritual wisdom, but today it must be fleshed out and applied…to build a new global system. That is our challenge, and that is our major project in the months ahead.

There is no question that the United States is a thousand times better off with Obama than his criminal predecessors (one of whom seems unwilling to let go of the fear…ehem, I’m talking about you, Darth Cheney).

We made a huge step forward last November when we elected a person like Obama. Unfortunately, the last eight years left us little room for mistakes. We can no longer afford two steps forward and one step back.

So the question we are left with is: What is the most probable outcome? Will Obama suddenly shift to a new foreign policy paradigm that advances international coexistence between East and West, between Muslim, Christian, and Jew, between rich and poor?

Or will Obama continue his drift toward hypocrisy, appeasement of the conservative right, and repetition of the failures of the past?

Progressives like Rabbi Lerner believe our duty as citizens only began last November. The future is up to us.

**************************
Stumblers:
Thanks for supporting AWOP TeamZine when you click on our "Thumb This Up" button below.
Tweeters:
Click the "Tweet This" button and easily send us to your followers on Twitter.

Peace Y'all