IN THE NAME OF ISLAM

August 2005
		The July 2005 suicide bombings in London's transit system and attacks in a resort town in Egypt have stoked the debate within the Muslim community about why so many perpetrators of terrorist attacks are Muslims and what ordinary believers in Islam can do to keep people from killing in the name of their religion. Four Muslim thinkers answer your questions.

Forum Introduction Does Islam ever justify the killing of innocents? Why don't Muslims who commit terrorist acts see that violence is counterproductive? Does U.S. foreign policy take the correct approach to influencing the rise of democracy in Muslim nations? Do most young Muslims in the U.S. feel they are integrated into U.S. society? On the NewsHour, did you read from the Quran or an interpretation? How can one foster dialogue with the broader religious community? How can we stop terrorism at its source? Why do militant young Muslims obey someone with no official clerical standing, like Osama bin Laden? What literature can I read to better understand the teachings of Islam? Is there a theological authority that is recognized by all or a great majority of Muslims? What's the difference between Islam and Muslim?	Joseph Colton of Sierra Madre, Calif. asks: My question is how thoughtful people like you can effectively carry the message? Do you believe that USA foreign policy takes the correct approach to influencing the rise of democracy in Muslim nations? Imam Shaker Elsayed responds: Unfortunately, the message of Islam is drowned under the noise of the current atmosphere of war, terrorism, media biases and the general public's lack of awareness of the issues involved. But the truth will eventually prevail even if it took a long time. Terrorists want us to believe that Islam supports what they are doing, and it does not. Our politicians want us to believe what they are doing as the "solution," but our healthy skepticism of the history of politicians and their pronouncements does not allow us to accept what they are telling us either. We now know better because of Vietnam, Korea, Iran and its Shah, and Iraq's Saddam Hussein. I hope I could say with any degree of confidence we can and must trust our government, unfortunately I cannot, without disregarding how our trust of our government have been consistently violated, over the history, and it continues. Georgetown graduate student Shadi Hamid responds: The answer to the second question is an emphatic no. Even though I'm a Democrat, I will be honest and say that I love Bush's pro-democracy rhetoric. I remember reading the words of his inaugural and State of the Union addresses earlier this year: "All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you." The president continued, "The road of providence is uneven and unpredictable, yet we know where it leads: It leads to freedom." For some this was a call to arms, a frightening sign of America's boundless imperial ambition in the Arab world. For me, however, this was a most appropriate progression, a sign that America was finally ready to assume its role as the world's revolutionary purveyor of democratic ideals. Yet it was not to be. The Bush administration had done very little of note to back up its lofty, high-minded rhetoric. Too often, we use democracy as a tool against our enemies (Iran, Syria) but turn a blind eye to the continuing authoritarian practices of friendly Arab autocrats (i.e., Egypt's Hosni Mubarak, Jordan's King Abdullah). In other words, the Faustian bargain that has defined our policy for so long remains safely in place. It is time to change course and pressure recalcitrant regimes to open up their political systems. This means saying to Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, if you don't hold free and fair parliamentary and presidential elections this fall, we will cut the $2 billion of aid we give you each year. It hurts our credibility when Muslims throughout the world see the large gap between our rhetoric and policy, between what we say and what we do. More importantly, such coddling of dictators is downright dangerous for our national security. We as American must realize what's at stake. The war on terrorism and the war on autocracy are two sides of the same coin. We cannot win the former without waging the latter. It is worth noting a recent study by Princeton's Alan Krueger and Czech scholar Jitka Maleckova which analyzed data on terrorist attacks and measured it against the characteristics of the terrorists' countries of origin. The conclusion was that "countries with more freedom were less likely to be the birthplace of international terrorists." Yes -- more freedom, less terrorism. And, indeed, it is no mistake that none of the Al-Qaida terrorists are from Turkey, India, Indonesia, Senegal, Mali and Malaysia -- six countries with substantial Muslim populations. At least Bush talks about democracy. At least he has exerted some pressure on Egypt and Saudi Arabia, which is more than can be said for many of his predecessors. Bush's rhetoric, even if it's only rhetoric, gives Arab dictators something to think about it when they sleep at night. Yet there are those who want no part in this. Despite the increasingly obvious importance of democracy promotion, there are those in both the Democratic and Republican parties who wish for a return to the days of cold, calculated realpolitik, when Henry Kissinger made coddling of ruthless dictators a new kind of art form. To me this is frightening, for the realists, it would appear, have lost faith in the very promise of America, in its ability to fulfill its potential as an exemplar of the ideals upon which it was founded. And then there are those (primarily on the left) who cite America's support of authoritarian regimes in arguing that we have no right to preach "democracy" to the rest of the world. Yet, the worst thing that the U.S. could do now is allow itself to become hostage to past policies, however wrong and misguided they may have been. Professor Salim Mansur responds: U.S. foreign policy on the whole has served the cause of freedom. But there have been on occasions as during the Cold War tactical divergences, as in the support of dictators be they in Latin America or the Middle East based on the consideration of lesser evil. President Bush since 9/11 is charting a new direction consistent with America's founding principles and national interests to advance the cause of freedom in the Muslim world where the notion of freedom, at least in modern times, has been alien and missing from the lives of common people. After 9/11 it should be clear to Americans that freedom abroad is intimately bound with the preservation of freedom at home, but as Americans found in World War II and during the Cold War the enemies of freedom can be extremely brutal, well-organized and determined to push back the frontiers of freedom, and this is what is taking place in the Middle East. The future of Iraq as a free and democratic society is intimately bound with the preservation of freedom in America just as containment of Communism was intimately bound with the security of America. Iraq is today's battle ground for freedom in the Middle East and the wider Muslim world. President Bush has been more right than mistaken on this matter, and Americans should close ranks and stand behind President Bush as they did behind all their presidents since Truman in waging the Cold War successfully to its conclusion.