Book Review: John Esposito, The Future of Islam

This article first appeared in The Huffington Post

Don't let the fancy title of this author, Professor at Georgetown University, or the name of the publisher, Oxford University Press, fool you. The book is more of a propaganda pamphlet trying to make a case for political Islam and I only, and regrettably, bought it because I saw it reviewed in the prestigious Foreign Affairs magazine.

This is the main theme of the book: John Esposito dwells on opinion polls - without presenting their methodology - to come up with conclusions about Western attitudes toward Islam and Muslims. He also includes polls for Muslims to explain their behavior toward the West.

Esposito argues that the majority of Americans knows little and is misinformed about Islam. This has caused American bigotry toward the community of Muslim-Americans, which should be viewed as no less American than any other ethnic group in the United States.

As American as Muslim-Americans can be, many of them maintain unfavorable views toward the United States, not because they are not allowed to integrate - which they are in general disregarding the anti-Muslim opinions of a few American radical right wingers - but because these Muslim-Americans, according to Esposito, have feelings of solidarity with their fellow Muslims around the world.

So Esposito, a "leading authority" on Islam as per the book's jacket, argues for Muslim-American integration in the United States, but at the same time sees no contradiction if these Muslim-Americans maintain their sentiments toward their "fellow" Muslims overseas.

Esposito does not run out of failing arguments. In this single volume, he writes that Muslims are angry with America over (a) America's support of dictators in Muslim countries, (b) America's sanctions against Iraq under Saddam Hussein, (c) "the attempt to manage the process of democratization in post-Saddam Iraq". So whether America befriends Muslim dictators, twists their arms, or removes them by military force, choices that cover almost all available options for US foreign policy, Muslims would still think unfavorably of the United States.

But wait, it gets better when Esposito presents the moderates among Muslim thinkers. He complains that Muslim "[p]reachers of peace or conflict resolution might, if lucky, get a little coverage buried somewhere in the back pages."

On page 32, Esposito writes: "On September 27, 2001, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi (chairman of the Sunna and Sira Council, Qatar)...issued a fatwa, signed by American Muslim leaders and internationally prominent Islamic scholars. The fatwa condemned bin Ladin's actions of 9/11 and sanctioned Muslim participation in the United States' military response in Afghanistan."
On page 140, Esposito writes: "While majorities of Muslims reject suicide bombing in Palestine, prominent religious scholars and leaders like Qaradawi have been at loggerheads with religious authorities in Saudi Arabia and Egypt on this issue."

So according to Esposito, Qaradawi - whom he presented as a moderate Muslim - condemns in a fatwa suicide attacks on 9/11, but sanctions - in another fatwa - suicide bombings in Palestine.

Or consider this figure that enjoys "international influence" that Esposito presents: Frahat Hashmi. Esposito writes that Hashmi "asserts only religious scholars should reinterpret Islamic law and that the Quran should dictate the parameters of such reform." Fair enough.

But to Hashmi, reform still means the implementation of Shariah. "Hashmi says Muslims should focus on inculcating Islamic values in a gradual approach to implement Shariah."

In Hashmi's words: "I don't think that the Shariah should be artificially enforced... Unfortunately this is what has been happening in Pakistan. The Prophet (PBUH) first won the hearts of the people by giving them laws to live by and for Him to explain and achieve this took many years. Take the case of alcohol: it was first touched upon lightly, then after a while more strongly and then the third time it was banned. The purpose behind it was gradually explained so when the final ban came, people were ready to accept it. I feel it is important to first explain the concept to people and give them time to understand, debate, and accept it. Nothing should just be imposed arbitrarily."

Esposito simply fails to notice that the only difference between Hashmi, the so-called reformer, and the more traditional "religious scholars" is the way of introducing new rules and prohibitions. Whereas the traditional Muslim scholars want the bans instant, Hashmi prefers to "prepare" the people through more propagandizing, then coming with the same bans when the people are softened enough.

And by the way, Hashmi lives and preaches her version of Islam in Canada, where perhaps she plans to implement the Shariah once Canadians understand it enough and are recipient to it.

Esposito, the self-proclaimed leading authority on Islam, prints a book with the biggest amount of false arguments. Even in terms of style, his spelling of Arabic words (Esposito did not use proper academic transliteration but rather stuck with his own simplistic way of spelling Arabic words in English) makes me believe that Esposito does not even know Arabic well.

The book is a waste of money. It needs a whole rebuttal book to correct its errors. But if you live in the West and therefore know little about Islam or Muslims as per Esposito's polls, don't buy this book because it will only mislead you.

Islam is not tantamount to terrorism. This is what Esposito unfortunately failed to argue.

Look Who's Talking: Turkey!

This article first appeared in The Huffington Post

A country that has been occupying part of a neighbor state for decades, that often sends its air force to bomb anti-government militants, that refuses to give civil rights to its biggest minority and that twists arms of world governments in order to impose its version of history... well, you guessed it, it is Turkey.

In 1974, Turkey invaded the northern part of Cyprus presumably to rescue Turkish Cypriots amid growing tensions with their compatriot Greek Cypriots. Since then, Turkey has maintained its occupation over Northern Cyprus that proclaimed its independence in 1983. Going against the will of the United Nations, Turkey was the only one to recognize Northern Cyprus, while the world stood in support of Nicosia's sovereignty over the occupied land. Turkish military bullying in the Middle East did not stop in 1974 as the Turkish army often launches punitive air and ground campaigns against Kurdish rebels in southern Turkey. Turkey's Kurds have long been deprived of their political, cultural and economic rights, often forced to relinquish the teaching of their language in their schools, and never allowed to create any political groups.

The unlucky Kurds repeatedly revolted against Ankara. Some of them went as far as demanding autonomy or independence, thus inviting further brutality from the Turkish majority dominating the government.

The rebellious Kurds formed armed groups and launched their own war of independence. In retribution, the Turkish army has repeatedly pursued them in the mountainous southeastern part of the country. Whenever squeezed, Kurdish militiamen take refuge in the predominantly Kurdish northern Iraq. In their footsteps, the Turkish army has - several times - crossed the border into Iraq. When it did not, like a week ago, it only shelled Kurdish positions on the border.

Until a few years ago, Turkey had been preoccupied with its own affairs, whether in Cyprus or southeastern Turkey. But recently, Ankara has become an outspoken player in one of the world's toughest and most volatile regions. The Turkish government has taken sides and entered into alliances with rogue states such as Iran and Syria.

Meanwhile, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has leveled criticism against Middle Eastern and world governments, sometimes accusing them of being unfair when dealing with Iran, at other times blaming this or that government for its domestic policies.

But when it comes to civil liberties, look who's talking. True, Erdogan eased some restrictions on the Kurds as he recently allowed them to use their language in the broadcast of private satellite stations or in recording songs. However, until today, the Kurds were not allowed to give their children Kurdish names, or form political parties.

It has long been known that a government repressive of Kurdish rights sits in Ankara. Despite the lifting of a few restrictions on the Kurds -- under pressure from the EU which Turkey aspires to join for economic benefits -- Erdogan and his cabinet pretend to be champions of human rights around the world.

Bad blood has also long existed between Turkey and Armenia over what many Armenians believe to be Turkish mass killings of Armenians in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century.

Since an influential community of Armenian stock lives in California, home state of Congressman and Chairperson of Foreign Relations Committee Howard Berman, the Armenians lobbied for the committee to approve a bill that describes the Turkish massacres as genocide.
Erdogan and his cabinet went ballistic. They recalled their Ambassador to Washington, even though President Barak Obama's Whitehouse had remained silent on the issue. After some American cozying up, the Turks resent their ambassador.

The genocide debacle between Washington and Ankara has a parallel in history that only a few might remember. When former President George Bush asked Turkey to open its Angerlik base for American troops preparing to launch Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003, Turkish parliament convened and voted against the American request. The Turkish government, a long time ally of the US and a NATO member, declined Washington's request on the grounds that it couldn't have possibly forced such a decision down the throats of the elected representatives of the people of Turkey.

But when a Congressional committee voted on the Armenian Genocide, the Turks punished the US government for a bill that had only passed one stage of its long journey to become law.
The Turkish arrogance continues.

Erdogan recently canceled a trip to Buenos Aires after the Argentinean government had moved a bust of Turkey's founder Kamal Ataturk, formerly on display. He blamed the Armenian lobby and said that his move "suited Turkey's honor."

Turkey should either practice what it preaches about world justice and civil rights, or it should stop its trip of arrogance and go back to minding its own business. With its new behavior, Turkey is not welcome back into regional and world politics.

Book review: The Ghosts of Martyrs Square by Michael Young

This article was also posted on The Huffington Post and amazon.com

"A new power rises across the Mideast, advocates for democracy begin to taste success after years of fruitless effort," according to the Post's lead headline on April 17, 2005. The front page picture showed Lebanese columnist Samir Kassir in front of Beirut's Martyrs' Statue, the site of the Independence Uprising that forced an end to 30 years of Syrian occupation of Lebanon.

Reporting from Beirut, Scott Wilson and Daniel Williams wrote: "Suddenly [the Lebanese] were at the cutting edge of the Arab world's democratic spring."

But the Beirut Spring was short-lived, despite the Syrian withdrawal that April. On June 2, Kassir was assassinated and became the second victim, after former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri whose murder, in February, proved to be the spark that started an uprising.

"The taboos were beginning to fall, but the Syrians and their sympathizers had not called it a day," wrote Michael Young in his book The Ghosts of Martyrs Square, which captures the rise and fall of the democracy frenzy in Lebanon between 2005 and 2009.

Young is the opinion page editor at Beirut's The Daily Star. He was born in the United States to an American father and a Lebanese mother. The father prematurely died when Young was seven, and the mother took the boy back to Lebanon where Michael was raised.

In The Ghosts of Martyrs Square, Young does not follow any particular chronological order, which adds to the book's allure. He opens with a story about his friendship with Kassir, an outspoken pro-democracy intellectual whose face later became the uprising's poster.

Young then sums up his understanding of Lebanon, until recently the only Arab country with an elected parliament and government. Young reasons -- and rightly so -- that unlike other Arab countries where one group muscled its way to power, Lebanon's diverse population of 18 ethno-religious groups resulted in a zero-sum game.

Lebanon's diversity was its weakness too. Because no group could dominate, the system lingered in paralysis. And while Lebanon's diversity allowed the growth of liberal thought, it also made the country an easy prey for its only neighbor Syria.

"The Syrians played a balancing game. They co-opted the older leaders, promoted new ones entirely dependent on Damascus... and hit out against the incorrigibles," Young argued.

In 2000, Syrian autocrat Hafez Assad died and his son Bashar succeeded him. Unlike his cunning father, who ruled Lebanon through his balancing game, Bashar Assad imposed his will through coercion, which he practiced both directly and through Lebanese army officers loyal to him. It was only a matter of time before the Lebanese establishment, created by the end of the civil war in 1990, revolted in the face of Assad and his Lebanese cronies.

In summer 2004, Assad twisted arms to force the extension of the term of his loyalist Lebanon's President Emile Lahoud, much to the explicit opposition of veteran politician Walid Jumblatt and implicit resistance of Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. In February 2005, Hariri was murdered.

Young argues that popular frustration resulted in the biggest rally in Lebanon's history. On March 14, 2005, more than one third of Lebanon's four million population took to Martyrs' Square. Lebanon's liberal intellectuals, and later politicians opposed to Syria, helped put a face and give a voice to that movement, which came to be known as March 14.

While the March 14 Movement proved instrumental for winning back Lebanon's independence from the Syrians, it also demonstrated the shortcomings of the Lebanese system unable to build on the 2005 success, as Lebanon remained fractured, thus allowing a Syrian comeback.

"We must cut a deal with Syria, those who went after Hariri won't leave Lebanon so easily," Jumblatt told Young in 2005.

But it would take Jumblatt and March 14 four years before they conceded to the Syrians, and Young skillfully records the events leading to the March 14 demise. These included a 33-day war that Hezbollah started with Israel in July 2006, followed by Hezbollah pulling out of government and instructing its supporters to rally for more than a year in downtown Beirut, shutting down businesses and obstructing government.

In 2007, Lebanon saw more bombs and assassinations, and in May 2008, Hezbollah fighters invaded Beirut and southern Mount Lebanon in a punitive raid that forced March 14 to concede. Young informatively reports on the UN Security Council formation of a Special Tribunal on Lebanon, designed to bring to justice the perpetrators of the crime of Hariri, Kassir and a dozen other journalists, politicians and security officers.

In 2009, even though March 14 defeated Hezbollah and its allies in parliamentary elections, the group remained powerful enough to bully its opponents and force the formation of a cabinet to its liking. Thus ended the democracy saga in the Middle East.

To Samir Kassir and Neda Agha-Soltan

Hussain Abdul-Hussain

Today marks five years since Lebanese columnist Samir Kassir was assassinated in Beirut. His perpetrators remain at large, while fighting for democracy in Lebanon and the Middle East looks today like beating a dead horse.

Until his death, Samir had been an inspiration to many of us and - like in most cultures - people try to defy death by trying to keep the memory of their loved ones alive.

For Samir, we created a website in three languages in his memory. We translated dozens of his articles, and the introduction chapter to one of his books, from Arabic to English. We collected and posted videos of him passionately arguing for the spread of the Spring of Beirut, which had started in 2005, across the Middle East.

By his first anniversary, we had created a foundation in Samir's name, and- together with the European Union - announced a contest for journalists who had published articles in defense of democracy and freedom.

On his second anniversary, a statue of Samir was erected in a park next to the newspaper where he used to work.

On his third anniversary, we arranged for the translation and publication of his masterpiece books such as the History of Beirut and Arab Misery Is no Fate in several languages.

Last June, we renewed our promise that for Samir to stay alive, we should keep up the fight for democracy in Lebanon and the region at large.

Two days later, President Barak Obama stood in Cairo and talked about America's "support of democracy." While this might sound encouraging to many, those of us with a trained ear understood the underlying message. Gone were the days of George Bush's "spreading of democracy." After two wars, America was bruised and in no mood to defeat the world's autocrats, instead seeking to entertain them.

We realized that "support for democracy" accounted for little. Yet our alternatives were none. Democracy is indispensible for all peoples. In our case, stopping the fight for democracy meant that Samir had died in vein.

And so, we kept fighting. In Lebanon, perhaps for the first time in Middle Eastern history, an Islamist group was defeated in the polls as Hezbollah lost in parliamentary elections only five days after Obama's speech. The democracy euphoria expanded all the way to surprise Hezbollah's patrons in Tehran when Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad found himself - a week later - short of reelection votes at the polls, as the Iranians confronted one of the world's most tyrannical regimes.

Like in Lebanon, the tyrants in Iran terrorized freedom lovers. Neda Agha-Soltan lost her life on June 19, 2009, on camera, and became, like Samir Kassir four years earlier, the face of her people's struggle for democracy.

In Lebanon and in Iran too, not only America's support never came, Washington's repeated invitations of engagement with the tyrants in Beirut, Damascus, Tehran and other capitals made the fight for democracy even harder.

And while the Lebanese - like the Iranians -showed resilience in fighting tyranny, their leaders proved to be the other side of the coin as they started bargaining with their respective regimes.

In Lebanon, lawmaker Walid Jumblatt had been the ally of the autocrat who killed his father decades ago. In 2005, however, Jumblatt had a change of heart as he led the Lebanese to force a withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon after 30 years of occupation. In the process, Jumblatt repeatedly quoted Samir as one of his favorite Beirut Spring heroes.

To the misfortune of democracy lovers, however, Jumblatt proved to be more of a politician than a national leader. Seeing change in Washington, which followed similar change in Paris, Jumblatt started preaching realism in light of Lebanon's seemingly losing battle for democracy in a region crowded with autocrats.

Many of us tried talking Jumblatt and leaders of the Beirut Spring out of their defeatist spirit, just like our Iranian pro-democracy friends of the Green Movement tried lobbying their broken leadership to stand up again, but to no avail.

We told Jumblatt that national battles for democracy, independence and freedom are not always guaranteed. We borrowed from the histories of other nations to illustrate our point: When Francis Scott Key wrote America's national anthem, he had not learnt whether the American Fort McHenry had fallen to the British or not.

American determination was instrumental in winning the nation's battle for independence from the British, with or without foreign support from Britain's European rivals. If the battle for freedom worked for America, it should also work for Lebanon, Iran and any other country fighting against tyranny.

For Samir, Neda and the many others who lost their lives for democracy, we should keep up the fight, with or without American support.