In recent days, the Public Broadcasting Channel (PBS) in the United States has been airing a series of documentaries on the challenges facing America in the post-9/11 world. Perhaps predictably, many if not all such documentaries focus on themes such as Islam in America, Reform in Islam and the like.

One of these documentaries, entitled "Islam vs. Islamists," has recently become the subject of controversy. PBS producers decided to withdraw it from the line-up, owing to concerns that the documentary "demonises Islam." The 52-minute film, which cost US$675,000 to make, focuses on the conflicts between "moderate" Muslims and Islamists that have erupted since 9/11. The producers of the documentary have decried the move by PBS executives as unwarranted censorship and have appeared in news and media outlets defending their work.

The controversy is illustrative of several things. First, it demonstrates the near-frenzied desire among Western media, in their attempt to overcome their ignorance of Islam, to come up with neat definitions of terms such as "moderate" Muslim, "conservative" Muslim and of course "Islamist." Now relegated to the floor of a cutting room at PBS, this film takes a particular stance on the issue. It paints some "moderate" Muslims, in this case a chosen few as the "good" Muslims. These "good" Muslims are reviled and castigated by the "bad" or Islamist Muslims who subject them to threats of violence and persecution.

On its face, the stated aim of the film's producers, both of whom belong to neo-conservative think tanks, is to illustrate how moderate Muslims are often persecuted in their attempt to defend their faith from extremists. Taken by itself this is a venerable goal - recent events in Pakistan have illustrated only too well the struggles of moderate Muslims in taking on the incipient extremism spreading within their faith and the challenging obstacles they face in doing so.

The troubling aspect of the film is its attempt to brand what kind of Muslim counts as acceptable or unacceptable, especially within Western contexts. In choosing certain people to represent Islam and suggesting that only liberal and progressive notions of Islam are acceptable or good, the makers of the film seek to advance an argument that fails to respect the distinction between conservative and extremist Muslims. This distinction between religious "conservatism" and religious "extremism" is crucial: one is an orthodox (even traditional) interpretation of religion (in this case Islam) while the latter manifests a streak that invariably uses religion for political purposes and even justifies killing others by branding them as infidel.

In other words, while efforts such as campaigns to establish Sharia tribunals in Ontario (which are presented as examples of what the bad or "Islamist" Muslims do in the film) can be criticised politically for their religious conservatism, they cannot be criminalised and treated like extremist campaigns that justify terrorism and the taking of innocent lives. To conflate religious extremism with religious conservatism is not only to make the mistake of alienating millions of Muslims who are peaceful but conservative, but also minimises the grotesque acts of extremist Muslims who are actively involved in terrorism.

Equally worthy of discussion is the politics of those behind the documentary. Frank Gaffney, one of the lead creators of the film is head of the neo-conservative hawk policy institute, Centre for Security Policy. A stalwart in his support for the war in Iraq, Gaffney in a recent presentation argued that Tehran "is working toward a nuclear capability that could destroy America as we know it," even suggesting that the Iranians are set to produce a nuclear weapon that would detonate itself over space and return America "to a pre-industrial society in the blink of an eye."

Gaffney's views pose an interesting and pressing question to liberal Muslims in the West: Does hatred for fundamentalist Islam justify aligning oneself with neo-conservative agendas? In other words, does the reality of the tyranny of oppression and hatred unleashed by conservative Imams justify supporting an equally barbaric and cruel military expansionist agenda that involves the death and obliteration of millions of innocent civilians? Ultimately, does fighting one form of extreme fundamentalism require supporting another simply to insure that at least one of these is vanquished?

The framing of this choice, and that it requires one to choose between two evils, is in many ways the most damning geopolitical dilemma facing Muslims in the West. Added to the temptation of joining forces with the neo-cons bent on profiting from demonising Muslims is the fact that those who have chosen to join forces with them have reaped immense rewards. For instance, a Somali-born Dutch former MP is a fellow at the neo-conservative American Enterprise Institute and is reaping rich rewards from her autobiography, which presents Islam as inherently violent and oppressive. Similarly, another writer, a frequent guest on the conservative Glenn Beck show, has been painted as a hero by Western media. Being the kind of "moderate" Muslim the American neo-conservatives want you to be is indeed becoming a quick trip to instant fame and fortune.

The aim of the "America at a Crossroads" series of which the canned documentary was a part, is to present an overview of the challenges facing the United States in a post-9/11 world. In choosing not to air the documentary, PBS seems to have made its most persuasive statement regarding the message they were attempting to send. Indeed, one of the most daunting challenges facing America today is to realise that choosing those Muslims that look most Western and thus least threatening, and reviling others as Islamofascist, is a prejudiced and misguided stance.

Religious extremism is undoubtedly a reality and must be countered, but its ideological antidote is not a different kind of fundamentalism but rather a campaign against all fundamentalisms, religious or otherwise.

The neo-conservatives (and some on the political left as well) constantly ask why is there a deafening silence amongst the moderate Muslims. Then they answer their own question by saying it is because the Muslim extremists are threatening the moderates. This is incorrect. The reason why there is a deafening silence is because the mainstream media is not interested in interviewing moderate Muslims. They like to paint Muslims in a one-dimensional way: the males as bearded protester burning American and Israeli flags and the women as subservient, dressed head to toe in black.

Anyone who wants to make an intellectually honest film about Islam and America should include the American governments collaborations with Muslim extremists. See Today's 'Islamic Fascists' Were Yesterday's Friends at http://www.antiwar.com/orig/oneill.php?articleid=9615

Here is a review of the book All the Shah’s Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terrror http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/hrj/iss17/booknotes-All.shtml

Here is an article about
Regime Change: How the CIA put Saddam's Party in Power http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/217.html

Here is an article about how the U.S. Fueled the Iran-Iraq Slaughter
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=2292

This is just for starters, there is more to be discussed such U.S. involvement in Lebanon and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

Randall, I also believe that the media (other than NPR and partially PBS) do not see business value in interviewing every-day Muslims. There are some reasons that are our own fault for this, but for the most part, there is a lack of will on the behalf of the media. Anyway, every-day people of any stripe never get on TV anyway, so maybe its just part of the nature of being famous, interesting or infamous enough to be on TV.

Secondly, just because the above exists does not validate your statement that silence exists *not* because of fundamentalists. There most certainly is intimidation at work, mostly soft intimidation techniques like calling into question a Muslim's faith for opposing the political Islamist agenda in the mosques and verbal brow beatings are common too. So, far even the fundis in the US at least, are afraid of Law enforcement although they try hard to neutralize them in a variety of propganda campaigns that are having little effect. Fundamentalist imitimidation most certainly exists and faced with the choice of staying quiet to live an everyday life versus being denounced by people with religious "umph" in the community, most Muslims juststay quiet and find its just not worth it.

You can't ignore that, but if you don't attend a variety of mosques and see what happens, then how would know whether fundis do that or not?

And, just how does your canned blame-America-first-all-foreign-affairs rant fit into the above topic??

OmarG wrote "Anyway, every-day people of any stripe never get on TV anyway, so maybe its just part of the nature of being famous, interesting or infamous enough to be on TV."

But many radio and television talk shows hosts and newspaper columnists ask "Why aren't moderate Muslims condemining terrorists? Why aren't they speaking up about human rights violations in Muslim countries? etc"
If they were interested in asking the question, why don't they invite moderate Muslims to answer the question?

OmarG wrote "Fundamentalist imitimidation most certainly exists and faced with the choice of staying quiet to live an everyday life versus being denounced by people with religious "umph" in the community, most Muslims juststay quiet and find its just not worth it.

You can't ignore that, but if you don't attend a variety of mosques and see what happens, then how would know whether fundis do that or not?"

There are many people who have causes and face intimidation. That doesn't mean that no one belonging to that cause is willing to talk.

I can name moderate Muslims who if invited would be willing to talk to the mainstream media:

Mona Eltahawy
Warith Deen Muhammed
Hesham Hassaballa
All of the columnists that are listed on this website.

I think you know as well as I, there are many moderate Muslims who would be willing to talk to the mainstream media.

Has Rafia Zakaria actually seen this documentary?

The real question is where are the moderate Americans and moderate westerners. Both groups have and are far more likely to support terrorism then Muslims. Will PBS and US state media make a program on that?

Sad when the most attention-worthy portion of the entire series is the portion left unaired.

I agree completely, Michelle. Hopefully PBS will sell the rights to another company and it will be released on DVD. It's about the only thing PBS can do to salvage its reputation at this point.

>>The real question is where are the moderate Americans and moderate westerners.

Someone already wrote an article about that on this site...it still does not excuse us Muslims from cleaning our own houses. Its like, to extend the metaphor, my neighbors don't clean thier yards of weeds, so hell, I'm going to fertilize my own weeds and outdo them all, ha!

----the near-frenzied desire among Western media, in their attempt to overcome their ignorance of Islam, to come up with neat definitions of terms such as "moderate" Muslim, "conservative" Muslim and of course "Islamist." .... The troubling aspect of the film is its attempt to brand what kind of Muslim counts as acceptable or unacceptable, especially within Western contexts. .... distinction between religious "conservatism" and religious "extremism" is crucial: one is an orthodox (even traditional) interpretation of religion (in this case Islam) while the latter manifests a streak that invariably uses religion for political purposes and even justifies killing others by branding them as infidel. .... In other words, while efforts such as campaigns to establish Sharia tribunals in Ontario (which are presented as examples of what the bad or "Islamist" Muslims do in the film) can be criticised politically for their religious conservatism, they cannot be criminalised and treated like extremist campaigns that justify terrorism and the taking of innocent lives. To conflate religious extremism with religious conservatism is not only to make the mistake of alienating millions of Muslims who are peaceful but conservative, but also minimises the grotesque acts of extremist Muslims who are actively involved in terrorism.

It seems that very little if any has improved since I first brought attention to the issue of Muslims and terminology in the media (that is, of Muslims being defined by others), a little over two years ago (Apr 9/05): http://www.altmuslim.com/perm.php?id=1431_0_25_0_C

In fact my concluding prgh:

Now, picture all of this in an academic setting, such as a public school classroom or a college course. A Muslim could only imagine how difficult and tedious it must be to express his/her viewpoints, if he or she is to do so in a language comprehensible to this environment. What other language would the environment understand, or is most likely to hold as credible, except "authoritative" discourse? But wouldn't the use of this discourse be self-defeating to the efforts of the Muslim seeking to present his or her views forward? The solution? Participate in reshaping the discourse. Sounds a lot easier said than done.

PBS (except for perhaps, CSPAN) is as "academic" as u can get on mainstream media.

The debate/discussion over the meaning & depths of the terms
"conservative," 'progressive,' and "fundamentalism" in the context of Islam & Muslims as well as the discussion/debate over "islamism" is all, in my opinion, intimately rel8d the discussion/deb8 & confusion over what is "islamic" versus what is "Muslim" versus what is both--all of which rel8s 2 Muslims' position w/regard to Western societies & [perhaps now more than previously, just as important] w/regard 2 themselves--that I raised in the article that altmuslim was kind to publish. All of these terms have unfortunately become so loaded & mainstreamd in nearly-absolute particular ways that making discussion over "Muslims" & "Islam" (as nouns) and "Muslim" & "Islamic" (as adjective or qualifiers for other adjectives) difficult in helping to hamper Muslims to move away from associated connotations as a starting point of discussion/deb8.

And yes, Muslims r in part responsible for this predicament, perhaps primarily in terms of logistics 2 get "our own house in order" even though vast improvements have been made in the past 2 decades or so. But, it needs to be said that Muslims also face enormous challenges where (in particular) the discussion/deb8 over violence & extremism & the relationship these have with "religiosity"/ "religious"
"orthodoxy" [& so forth] is agruably relatively pursued in greater depth (and in fact, less judgmental & presumptive) i for groups claiming 2 have Christian or Jewish, or other background. Even though there has been a growing public interest in learning about Islam, this "flexibility" is still not afforded to discussion when they involve Muslims & Islam--at least not in an reasonably equal or near-equal sense.

Are there violent Muslims who do unspeakable, seemingly senseless acts? Yes. Are there groups who use acts of terrorism & then justify them despicably under Islam? Yes. But the question here is not whether the violence or extremism exists; it's how we (Muslims & Non-Muslims) should go about to build a cooperative discourse--a tolerating framework of mind--not only over Muslim/Islamic issues but over all issues that seeks to both condemn senseless violence & terrorism while seeking to integrate the vast rest of Muslims & Islamic things.

America isn't different post 9/11. Its the same country, the same government, the same system of international politics. If America was truly interested in doing the right thing at the crossroads, the self reflection that they call on everyone else to do (everyone outside its borders) .. would be its own self reflection. If it really is the greatest and most powerful nation on earth .. you'd think they'd want to do things differently at the crossroads.

A case in point for muslims. Maybe we should never prescribe to others what suits us?

>> PBS (except for perhaps, CSPAN) is as "academic" as u can get on mainstream media.

In the US.

Being the kind of "moderate" Muslim the American neo-conservatives want you to be is indeed becoming a quick trip to instant fame and fortune.

If selling your soul is worth the instant fame and fortune, good luck to you in the long-term, particularly on the Day of Judgment.

I think it's easy for Muslims to think the reason mainstream media is serving up a "deafening silence because they are not interested in interviewing moderate Muslims." And perhaps that is in part the case. However, I believe it probably has more to do with the fact that the minute details that distinguish the moderates from the conservatives and the fundamentalists are very complicated, weighted with historical detail, and difficult to understand for the general American listening to mainstream media. And in case you haven't noticed by now, Americans want their news quick and simple, with as much drama as possible.

They don't really care enough about studying and learning about the small details of Islam to distinguish and judge appropriately. This speaks to the arrogance of the typical American, or perhaps it speaks the arrogance of humanity in general. After all, how many Muslims can tell us the difference between the beliefs of Catholics, Methodists, Southern Baptists, Church of Christ or Assembly of God?

>Someone already wrote an article about that on this site...it still does not excuse us Muslims from cleaning our own houses.<

True, however things are not so black and white. Polling shows that Americans are far likely to support terrorism then Muslims. It does matter whose house is in worse shape..or better yet that those who live glass homes shouldn't throw rocks at others.

>Its like, to extend the metaphor, my neighbors don't clean thier yards of weeds, so hell, I'm going to fertilize my own weeds and outdo them all, ha!<

Good one, but if your neighbor decides to kick down your door, seize your property, have his way with your family members and dictate to you how to react and be "moderate," because its for your own "good".....then I would say you have every right to blow his brains out.

Truth is, I don't think the mainstream media is interested in covering moderate *anything*, whether it's Muslim or not. The extremists and the lunatic fringe are much more interesting and deliver higher ratings. Who wants to watch a show full of reasonable people saying sensible things? Unfortunately, the answer is "not many"!

marcello09,

That's not true. The media will interview moderate Jews and Christains when discussing a relgious issue that concerns them.

If the media just keeps asking where are the moderate Muslims to speak up about violence and human rights violations, but does not interview, then we have a serious problem.

It is the job of the media to give us a balanced view of what is going on around the world. Otherwise, the people will not be able to make a proper decision about their government's policies.

> The media will interview moderate
> Jews and Christains when discussing
> a relgious issue that concerns them.

Hmm, I guess I just haven't seen that! Every time I turn on the TV I see lunatics of all stripes trying to out-scream every other lunatic of every other stripe. Gives me a splitting headache!

> It is the job of the media to give us
> a balanced view of what is going
> on around the world.

That's true, but I think we need to accept that the media just isn't doing their job, and that's not going to change anytime soon. It just means that the rest of us -- that is, reasonable people of all faiths -- need to work harder to connect with each other.

marcello09,

But then why is it only of Muslims it is asked "Where are the moderate Muslims to condemn extremiism and terrorism?"

The media asks the question, but they don't bother to interview moderate Muslims to get the answer.