 (Washington, DC) – Leaders from eight moderate Muslim organizations met on Monday with US Agency heads, Members of Congress and congressional staff at the US Capitol. These meeting were part of an historic Moderate Muslim Summit organized by US Representative Sue Myrick (NC-09). The summit was a first of its kind because it assembled the largest group of diverse Muslims in the US Capitol to discuss issues and policy impacting Muslim communities and societies.
At the summit, Muslim leaders were able to meet with representatives from the State Department, USAID, the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense in order to emphasize the importance of having a diverse Muslim voice when addressing Muslim communities and societies. They shared their thoughts and opinions on US foreign policy and aid, and how the US government can do a better job at reaching out and hearing from a more diverse group of Muslims rather than just the largest Muslim organizations who represent a minority opinion in the Muslim community.
“I’ve been working with many of these leaders for several years now,” said Rep. Myrick. “They give us valuable input on policy and provide us with new ideas on how to stamp out extremism in their communities and societies around the word. We set up this summit so we could introduce them to other Members of Congress and US agencies in hopes they will use them as a resource as well. It was very successful and I believe this summit was the first step to empower these leaders so that they will be a strong force in helping our government in combating radical Islamists and extremism”.
Leaders from the following organizations were present at the Summit:
Dr. Hedieh Mirahmadi- President World Organization for Resource Development and Education (WORDE)
Dr Zeyno Baran- Director for the Center for Eurasian Policy at the Hudson Institute
Farid Ghadry- President of the Reform Party of Syria
Manda Zand Ervin the founder and director of the Alliance of Iranian Women
Dr. Ali H. Alyami- Executive Director, The Center for Democracy and Human Rights in Saudi Arabia
Omran Salman- Arab Reformists Project, 'Aafaq (Arabic for “horizons”).
Dr. Zudi Jasser, American Islamic Forum for Democracy
Karim Bromund, Director of Inter-Religious Affairs for the Islamic Supreme Council of America
Dr Walid Phares, Senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, and academic advisor to the Congressional Anti-Terrorism Caucus, moderated the summit. "This first summit of ideologically moderate Muslim American NGOs and leaders held in the US Congress is only a first step in a new direction so that an alternative voice would be added to the debate within the community and about the issues related to foreign policy, defense, national security, and radicalization," said Phares. "This meeting is a sample of the forthcoming initiatives and projects that the NGOs have in mind. Future summits will include a wider circle of leaders and groups. But note that even at this early stage, the Myrick sponsored summit included representatives from various backgrounds: Sunni and Shia, Arab and Iranian, American and foreign born, religious and secular, etc."
Phares added: "the issues discussed with representatives from the State Department, the Defense Department, and US Aid covered a wide range of concerns from terrorism, counter radicalization, humanitarian assistance to community participation in national perception of Muslim public affairs." Phares said that the initial idea, as raised by Representative Myrick who serves as co-chair of the Anti-Terrorism Caucus in the US House, "is to help diversity grow in the debate among Muslim Americans and within the national community on issues important to all citizens." He said that the voices of democracy and pluralism seeking Muslim Americans should be heard by legislators, the Administration and the public." Source: Walid PharesNote: American Media could not be bothered to comment on the Moderate Muslim Summit. Hon. Sue Myrick
Latest recipient of The MASH Award
 April 23, 2009, 15:00 – 17:00
Palais des Nations, Geneva
Room/Salle XXV
Renowned Muslim experts from Africa, Asia, Europe and North America gather to consider how the implementation of universal human rights standards should be applied to racism and religious intolerance
UN Member States have agreed to the responsibility to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity, but what is today’s reality? With the proliferation of xenophobia and the questioning of universal human rights standards, the world is witnessing increasing conflict and repression rooted in intolerance. The Hudson Institute presents a unique opportunity to hear a prestigious panel gathered from four continents to discuss the universality of human rights standards in the fight against racism and religious intolerance.
Zeyno Baran is the Director of the Hudson Institute's Center for Eurasian Policy. Formerly, Baran directed the International Security and Energy Programs at The Nixon Center and the Caucasus Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. She was awarded the Order of Honor by Georgian President Shevardnadze, and has been a Distinguished Visitor at the American Academy in Berlin.
Khaled Abu Toameh is an Israeli Arab journalist and documentary filmmaker. He is the West Bank and Gaza correspondent for U.S. News and World Report and the Jerusalem Post, and has been the Palestinian affairs producer for NBC News since 1988.
Stephen Schwartz is the author of 20 books, including The Two Faces of Islam (translated into Bosnian, Albanian, Indonesian, and Farsi) and The Other Islam, both of which have gained wide readership in the Muslim world as well as in the West. He also worked as a consultant for the UN International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia.
Irfan Al-Alawi is a barrister in the U.K. and has a Ph. D. in Islamic Studies from Al-Azhar University, Cairo. He is currently Executive Director of the Islamic Heritage Foundation UK. He is a widely recognized historian of Mecca and Medina and co-author of an important work with Shaykh Yusuf Rifa'i.
Veli Sirin is a graduate in Islamic studies of the University of Bochum, he is a leader in the Alevi Youth Movement, a journalist and German Director of the Center for Islamic Pluralism.
Tarek Heggy studied law at Ain Shams University in Cairo, followed by a degree from the International Management Institute of Geneva University. He taught law in Algeria and Morocco and went on to become Chairman of Shell Companies in Egypt. He has lectured at universities throughout the world.
Hudson Institute is a non-partisan policy research organization dedicated to innovative research and analysis that promotes global security, prosperity, and freedom.
For further information, please contact:
Zeyno Baran, +1-202-255-2073, zeyno@hudson.org
Vivian Hakkak, Press Officer + 41 78 740 2422 vh@span.chHudson Institute
Latest recipient of The MASH Award
 | Muslim
vs.
Islamist |  |
This might be a longer blog post than usual, but Hudson Institute Center for Eurasian Policy director Zeyno Baran has written something that clearly and succinctly distinguishes the ambitions of Islamists versus the rest of the Muslim world. Baran was among the panelists last week at a forum sponsored by the Hudson Institute and the Pew Charitable Trust on America's role in promoting democracy abroad. The 100-minute discussion, moderated by ABC's George Stephanopoulos, featured a good exchange of ideas and an assessment of the challenges we now face. It can be seen here. But it is Baran's paper, "The Case for Liberal Democracy," that really merits attention. America is losing ground in the global war of ideas, she argues, in large part because it has sought short-term successes over a longer term strategy of how to best promote democracy. The push for elections helped legitimize Hamas, which won Palestinian elections in 2006. That wasn't what U.S. policy makers had in mind. Baran starts with a basic question: "Why is Islamism such a threat to democracy? Because in Islamist ideology, Islamic law sharia regulates every aspect of an individual's life; since it is considered to be God's law, no compromises are possible. The holistic nature of Islamist ideology makes it fundamentally incompatible with the self-criticism and exercise of free will necessary for human beings to form truly liberal and democratic societies." To Islamists, democratic elections are merely the mechanism to gain the power needed to implement sharia, which can fool naïve westerners who think elections by themselves are signs of progress in the Arab and Muslim world: "There are Muslims who are democrats and who accept democratic rule of law, of course—I proudly count myself among them—but Islamists' understanding of these terms is very different. Islamists have not only hijacked traditional Islam but also concepts like democracy, freedom and justice. They are sincere when they use these terms, but for an Islamist, 'justice' means 'the full implementation of sharia law,' while 'freedom' means 'free to merge religion with the state.'" The bottom line is that the U.S. does not understand what Islamism is. As Baran said during the December 10 forum, "Muslims can be democrats just like any other religious people can be. Islamists cannot and are not." Participating in elections provides a veneer of moderation that cloaks a radical agenda, Baran argues in her paper. It is a concession that makes it possible to bring about "an uncompromising worldview." That is why the Muslim Brotherhood has advocates who say it is a moderate group despite its goal of making sharia the governing basis of society: "It is true that most affiliates of this movement do not directly call for terrorist acts, are open to dialogue with the West, and participate in democratic elections. Yet this is not sufficient for them to qualify as "moderate," especially when their ideology is so extreme. Turning a blind eye to the Brotherhood and its ideological extremism—even if done for the sake of combating violent extremism and terrorism—is a direct threat to the democratic order." True democratic reform requires a long term investment in political stability and education. Hungry people who live in fear won't embrace democracy. They need to learn critical thinking skills and feel confident in their ability to provide for their families. Such changes don't come quickly or cheap, Baran acknowledges. But: "[C]ompared to how much US is spending on wars and military budget, the amount will be minimal with huge returns." It's an important paper in understanding why Islamists, even when they embrace a path of democracy over violence, still harbor an agenda that is antithetical to a free society. Read more ...Source: IPT Blog
 By Zeyno Baran
Will Turkey side with the United States, its NATO ally, and let more U.S. military ships into the Black Sea to assist Georgia? Or will it choose Russia?
A Turkish refusal would seriously impair American efforts to support the beleaguered Caucasus republic. Ever since Turkey joined NATO in 1952, it has hoped to never have to make a choice between the alliance and its Russian neighbor to the North. Yet that is precisely the decision before Ankara. If Turkey does not allow the ships through, it will essentially be taking Russia's side.
Whether in government or in the military, Turkish officials have for several years been expressing concern about U.S. intentions to "enter" the Black Sea. Even at the height of the Cold War, the Black Sea remained peaceful due to the fact that Turkey and Russia had clearly defined spheres of influence. But littoral countries Romania and Bulgaria have since joined NATO, and Ukraine and Georgia have drawn closer to the Euro-Atlantic alliance. Ankara has expressed nervousness about a potential Russian reaction.
The Turkish mantra goes something like this: "the U.S. wants to expand NATO into the Black Sea -- and as in Iraq, this will create a mess in our neighborhood, leaving us to deal with the consequences once America eventually pulls out. After all, if Russia is agitated, it won't be the Americans that will have to deal with them."
Nonetheless, Ankara sided with fellow NATO members in telling Georgia and Ukraine that they would be invited to join the alliance -- albeit without any time frame. But now that Russia has waged war in part over this decision, the Turks will have to pick sides. Deputy chief of the Russian general staff Anatoly Nogoivtsyn already warned Turkey that Russia will hold Turkey responsible if the U.S. ships do not leave the Black Sea. Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov will travel to Ankara on Monday to make clear that Russia means it.
Russia is Turkey's largest trading partner, mostly because of Turkey's dependence on Russian gas. More important, the two countries share what some call the post-imperial stress syndrome: that is, an inability to see former provinces as fellow independent states, and ultimately a wish to recreate old agreements on spheres of influence. When Mr. Putin gave a speech in Munich last year challenging the U.S.-led world order, Turks cheered. The Turkish military even posted it on its Web site. President Abdullah Gül recently suggested that "a new world order should emerge."
Turkey joined Russia at the height of its war on Georgia in suggesting a five-party "Caucasus Stability and Cooperation Platform." In other words, they want to keep the U.S. and the EU at arm's length. Both Russia and Turkey consider Georgia's American-educated president, Mikheil Saakashvili, to be crazy enough to unleash the next world war. In that view Turkey is not so far from the positions of France or Germany -- but even these two countries did not suggest that the Georgians sign up to a new regional arrangement co-chaired by Russia while the Kremlin's air force was bombing Georgian cities.
Two other neighbors -- Azerbaijan and Armenia -- are watching the Turkish-Russian partnership with concern. Azeris remember how the Turks -- their ethnic and religious brethren -- left them to be annexed by the Soviets in the 1920s. Armenians already fear their giant neighbor, who they consider to have committed genocide against them. Neither wants to have to rely on Iran (once again) as a counterbalance to Russia. Oh, and of course, Iran had its own sphere-of-influence arrangements with the Soviets as well.
Though Turkey and Iran are historic competitors, Turkey has broken with NATO countries recently by hosting President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad on a working visit. As the rest of NATO was preoccupied with the Russian aggression in Georgia, Turkey legitimized the Iranian leader amidst chants in Istanbul of "death to Israel, death to America."
A few days later, Turkey played host to Sudan's Omar al-Bashir, who is accused of genocide by the rest of NATO -- but not by Russia or Iran, or by the Muslim-majority countries who usually claim to care so much about Muslim lives.
Where is Turkey headed? Turkish officials say they are using their trust-based relations with various sides to act as a mediator between various parties in the region: the U.S. and Iran; Israel and Syria; Pakistan and Afghanistan, etc. It may be so. But as more American ships steam toward the Black Sea, a time for choosing has arrived.
Ms. Baran is senior fellow and director of the Center For Eurasian Policy at the Hudson Institute. Source: The Wall Street Journal
By Zeyno Baran
This week's verdict by Turkey's Constitutional Court -- which rejected an attempt to ban the governing Justice and Development Party (AKP) for undermining the country's secular foundations -- has been hailed by the U.S. and the EU as a great step forward for democracy and rule of law. Fair enough. Banning a party that last year renewed its mandate in office with 47% of the vote would have been a huge setback for Turkey. But that doesn't mean we should all sigh with relief and conclude that liberal democracy is flourishing under the Islamic-oriented AKP's rule.
Government surveillance of AK Party critics and leaks to media of personal phone conversations have created a climate of fear. There is concern among some liberals that the country is becoming a police state. The foundation of a healthy democracy -- the right to dissent and hold an elected government accountable -- is gradually being undermined.
When asked about mass wire-tapping, Minister of Transportation Binali Yildirim gave a Kafkaesque response: "It is not possible to prevent being listened to; the only way is not to talk [on the phone]. If there is nothing illegal in our actions, we should not be concerned about such things."
Some examples of recent intrusive practices in Turkey include the appearance on YouTube of voice recordings of prominent figures either from the military or antigovernment circles. Several anti-Islamist senior military officers have reportedly resigned over the past few years when faced with the possibility that their private conversations would be leaked. The leaks involve some top-secret military documents, so they are also highly illegal and might pose a serious security breach for the NATO alliance.
In this context, several aspects of the so-called Ergenekon trial are worth highlighting. Ergenekon is alleged to be a secret antigovernment organization named after a pre-Islamic Turkish myth. The case involves a network of ultranationalists -- including journalists, military, business and civil society leaders -- who allegedly have been involved in a range of terror attacks since the early 1990s, and most recently conspired to attempt a coup against the AKP.
The investigation began in June 2007, when over two dozen hand grenades were found in an Istanbul house. The same type of grenade was used in the attacks on the Istanbul offices of the prominent anti-Islamist newspaper Cumhuriyet in 2006. At the time, many believed the attack against the newspaper was carried out by Islamists. Now, according to the prosecution, this and other such attacks were not carried out by Islamists, but by Ergenekon conspirators.
The indictment reads like a Solzhenitsyn novel; it includes private conversations between suspects, who discuss their conversations with prominent figures, such as former president Suleyman Demirel and business tycoon Rahmi Koc. While these do not by themselves make a case, they are highly embarrassing when reprinted on the front pages of major newspapers. The message that many people took from the indictment is that those critical of the government are officially on notice.
The case is built around retired Brig. Gen. Veli Kucuk, an alleged leader of Ergenekon, who is accused of a number of illegal activities, including some of the most shocking crimes in recent Turkish history. Ergenekon conspirators are also accused of planning to murder the current chief of the Turkish military's general staff, Yasar Buyukanit, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Nobel Prize-winning author Orhan Pamuk (among others), and of planning attacks on NATO facilities.
Most Turks would welcome the elimination of such furtive armed networks, and the clear restoration of the rule of law. However, the timing of this case, as well as the movie-like aspects of the indictment, have aroused suspicions that the AKP or its supporters are behind a campaign of intimidation -- and that they are striking back in the legal arena against the same people who tried to ban the party.
First, the timing. The Istanbul court declared its acceptance of the indictment and released the 2,455 page document on July 25 -- the weekend prior to the start of the AKP closure case. While AKP and its supporters claim the two cases are not related, those in opposition see the two closely linked, and point to the headline of the strongly antimilitary daily Taraf the next day: "Founded in 1923, cleansed in 2008" -- i.e., it declared the collapse of Mustafa Kemal's secular Turkish Republic.
Second, the leading opposition paper Cumhuriyet seems to be a key target. The phones of its senior journalists have been tapped, and some conversations deemed anti-AKP leaked to the press -- including one involving a readout of an off-the-record conversation between the paper's U.S. correspondent and members of U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney's staff. The paper's senior editor and columnist, Ilhan Selcuk, was arrested in March as a result of the information extracted from his private phone conversations. He is one of the leading figures among the 86 people charged with being a member of a "terrorist organization."
A third point made by those who managed to go through those 2,455 pages is that the indictment is full of unsubstantiated speculation, and that its attempt to blame all kinds of terror attacks and assassinations on Ergenekon is far-fetched. These include the killing of prominent anti-Islamist scholars and journalists, and what were thought to be Kurdish acts of terror and killings by the Islamist group Hezbullah (unrelated to the Lebanese organization).
The Ergenekon trial has so far raised more questions than answers. If the allegations can be proven, it would be a huge success for the AKP for having the courage to tackle such a horrendous entity. If, however, it turns out to be mostly a show trial, then those concerned about Turkish democracy and rule of law need to reconsider where Turkey is headed.
Ms. Baran, a native of Turkey, is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and director of its Center for Eurasian Policy.
 An open hearing of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs bore witness to an unusually candid discussion about the Muslim Brotherhood's network in the United States. It was unusual in the respect that it was discussed at all. The fact that many major American Muslim organizations are derived from the Muslim Brotherhood is rarely addressed on Capitol Hill. The topic of the July 10 hearing was, "The Roots of Violent Islamist Extremism and Efforts to Counter It," and the subject most discussed was Islamist ideology as the root cause of terrorism. What made this hearing significant was the extent to which the U.S.-based Muslim Brotherhood network was discussed in oral and written testimony – largely by Zeyno Baran, senior fellow and director of the Center for Eurasian Policy at the Hudson Institute. Ms. Baran's central point was that, while not all Islamists will become terrorists, all Islamic terrorists begin with Islamist ideology. She cited the Muslim Brotherhood as the "prime example" of the spectrum of Islamist groups that, while differing in tactics, agree on their final goal: a world dominated by Islamic law, or Shariah. As such, Ms. Baran pointed out that there were inherent problems with the outreach policies of various government agencies. She specifically cited sensitivity training for the FBI run by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) as "completely self-defeating" as FBI agents might be taught to be overly sensitive and may avoid asking certain questions during investigations that they should be asking. Read more ...Source: IPT NewsZeyno Baran
Latest recipient of The MASH Award
By Zeyno Baran Reading the Western press, one would think that there is a fight in Turkey between the democratic - yet religious - governing party and the secular - but anti-democratic - opposition. This is not the case. The ultimate battle is for Turkey's soul: Will Turkey become a liberal democracy and remain an important member of the Euro-Atlantic community, or erode into an illiberal one, moving towards the Russia-Iran axis? Turkey is undergoing a complex political and social transformation. It is unique, and thus it is impossible to understand what is happening in Turkey today by comparing it with any other Muslim or Western country. Turkey is 99 percent Muslim, yet it was founded in 1923 as a secular republic. The ending of the caliphate and the Islamic Shariah legal system - thus separating religion and the state - was a truly revolutionary move. Most Muslim countries still have Shariah law enshrined in their constitutions. This has been a huge impediment to their democratic evolution because Shariah, encoded in the 8th century, is not compatible with democracy. For its part, Turkey has evolved as a democratic country because it has kept religion out of politics. The nation's founding fathers charted the country's course toward the West. However, succeeding generations failed to spread the values and ideals of the republic to the masses. The institutions of democracy remained weak and democratic political culture failed to take root. Read more ...Source: IHT
by Zeyno Baran "Who are the moderate Muslims, and why do they not speak up?" After being asked this question over and over again since 9/11, particularly after the Danish cartoon crisis, we decided to propose the following Muslim Manifesto: Recently, the disrespectful cartoons about Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) published in Jyllands-Posten resulted in an extreme reaction among many Muslims worldwide. While we understand the feelings of our co-religionists, we strongly urge them to refrain from rage and violence. A zeal for Allah is rightful only when it is expressed in an enlightened manner, since Allah himself has ordained a restrained response. When the early Muslims were mocked by their pagan contemporaries, the Koran ordered not a violent backlash, but rather a civilized disapproval: "When you hear Allah's verses being rejected and mocked at by people, you must not sit with them till they start talking of other things." (Koran 4:140) The Koran also describes Muslims as "those who control their rage and pardon other people, [because] Allah loves the good-doers." (3:134) Therefore all demonstrations against the mockery of Islam should be peaceful. All critiques of Islam should be countered not by threats and violence, but by rational counter-argument. We also believe that terrorist acts can never be justified or excused. None of the challenges Muslims face, such as oppression or military occupation, can justify attacks against non-combatants. In the Holy Koran, Allah orders Muslims to "never let hatred of anyone lead you into the sin of deviating from justice." (5:8) The true Islamic sense of justice is well-established in the traditions of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh); even in time of war — let alone peace — Muslim soldiers should never "kill the old, the infant, the child, or the woman." Those who do so are not martyrs, but cold-blooded murderers. Supported by the Koran's affirmation that "there is no compulsion in religion" (2:256), we cherish religious liberty. Every human has the right to believe or not to believe in Islam or in any other religion All Muslims furthermore have the right to reject and change their religion if desired. No state, community or individual has a right to impose Islam on others. People should accept and practice Islam not because they are forced to do so, but because they believe in its teachings. We support and cherish democracy — not because we reject the sovereignty of the Almighty over people, but because we believe that this sovereignty is manifested in the general will of people in a democratic and pluralistic society. We do not accept theocratic rule-not because we do not wish to obey Allah, but because theocratic rule inevitably becomes rule by fallible (and sometimes corrupt and misguided) humans in the name of the infallible God. We accept the legitimacy of the secular state and the secular law. Islamic law, or sharia, was developed at a time when Muslims were living in homogenous communities. In the modern world, virtually all societies are pluralistic, consisting of different faiths and of different perceptions of each faith, including Islam. In this pluralistic setting, a legal system based on a particular version of a single religion cannot be imposed on all citizens. Thus, a single secular law, open to all religions but based on none, is strongly needed. We believe that women have the same inalienable rights as men. We strongly denounce laws and attitudes in some Islamic societies that exclude women from society by denying them the rights of education, political participation and the individual pursuit of happiness. Like men, women should have the right to decide how they will live, dress, travel, marry and divorce; if they do not enjoy these rights, they are clearly second-class citizens. We believe that there is no contradiction between religious and national identities. Any Muslim should be able to embrace the citizenship of any modern secular state while maintaining feelings of spiritual solidarity with the umma, the global Muslim community. We regard Christianity and Judaism as sister faiths in the common family of Abrahamic monotheism. We strongly denounce anti-Semitism, which has been alien to Islam for many centuries but which unfortunately has gained popularity among some Muslims in recent decades. We accept Israel's right to exist, as well as the justified aspiration of the Palestinian people for a sovereign state and hope that a just two-state solution in Israel/Palestine will bring peace to the Holy Land. In short, we strongly disagree with and condemn those who promote or practice tyranny and violence in the name of Islam. We hope that their misguided deeds will not blacken our noble religion — which is indeed a path to God and a call for peace. We encourage Muslim political, social, community and business leaders to contact us at infor@muslimmanifesto.org to sign onto the Manifesto so that the authentic peaceful and civilized message of Islam will be heard. This article first appeared in NRO and was co-written by Mustafa Akyol Zeyno Baran joined Hudson Institute as Senior Fellow and Director of Hudson’s Center for Eurasian Policy in April 2006. Source: Hudson Institute H/T: Muslim News
 |
|
|
Copyright Muslims Against Sharia 2008. All rights reserved.
E-mail: info AT ReformIslam.org
|
|
|
Posts
