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.

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

It isn't only the Muslims who wonder why there are no moderates speaking for them in the media. I'm a Christian, and I don't see many sensible people speaking for my faith on television. I also have Jewish friends who feel that their faith isn't being fairly represented either.

Again, I don't think the media is going to change anytime soon. They've thrown a big obstacle in our path, and I doubt that we'll be able to move it. However, I think it's very possible that we can all find a way around it.

marcello09,

There may not be many priests and rabbis in the media. But there are journalists that are Christian and Jewish, that will present news in a balanced way when it involves their religion.

But more importantly than discussing religion is honestly discussing the United States foreign policy and actions around the world.

Almost as important, but not yet noted in this thread, as far as I can see, is the question of "How is a moderate non-Muslim to determine whether the Muslim he's dealing with is a moderate Muslim?" There are many non-Muslims who subscribe wholeheartedly to the idea that the only realistic solution to whatever problems are presented by extremist/jihadi/"radical" fundamentalist/caliphists must come from moderate Muslims. The question for the non-Muslim is how to tell who's who in Islam, when few Muslims seem able to define themselves in objective language. The few who do seem able, or willing to try, to differentiate themselves as moderates seem to immediately draw fire, even violence, from many other Muslims. Yet others who say they are moderate actually come off as Muslim varieties of "progressives", which, in English usage, as well as, I believe, Muslim usage, is a class far to the left of moderate.

Neither the jihadi nor the progressive is likely to draw willing, witting support from the moderates of the world. But how are those moderates to discover and help, or at least not to impede, the Muslim moderates in their efforts to counter those who are misusing Islam? Seems like this is one of the main questions PBS claims it is addressing for its American (Muslims as well as all others) audience, and the film at issue is just one such access point.

This Rafia Zakaria article seems to do the same thing PBS, by refusing to show or to release rights to the film, is doing, preventing the public from making its own decisions. I pray to be liberated from the thought control sought by progressives and neocons of Muslim or whatever persuasion. Arise Moderates, you've nothing to lose but freedom, and you've not got freedom 'til there's nothing left to lose.

IMHO, all the rote anti-US and self-centered "internationalist" commentators have offered exactly nothing towards a solution, although they've certainly identified themselves, as always, with the problem. No non-Muslim is preventing any Muslim from dealing on a personal and communal basis with the issues of moderation and immoderation in Islam.

Rafia,

I just want to say, "Kudos!" for yet another insightful and thought-provoking article about current events.

emjayinc asked “How is a moderate non-Muslim to determine whether the Muslim he's dealing with is a moderate Muslim?"

Would you like moderate Muslims to wear red white and blue crescents?

Your questions could be asked about any ethnic, religious or racial group. The answer to your question is to talk with Muslims. The media always asks about where are the Muslims to condemn this act or that statement, but they hardly, if ever invite Muslims to discuss the issues they want to know about. Instead they invite so called “experts” on Islam to talk about them. In my second comment above, I mentioned some Muslims that would be willing to be interviewed.

I have no problem with PBS including the controversial part about Islam. As long as they also include a program in the series about the United States collaboration with Muslim extremists and how the U.S. engages in regime change, even of governments that are democratically elected

Do you think PBS would allow a documentary made by Christians and Muslims about “Moderate vs Extremist” Jews?

Given taqqiyah as a precept in some varieties of Islamic interpretation, red, white and blue crescents would seem a bit like "methinks he doth protest too much...". In fact, more than a few of the contributors on the flaghead of AltMuslim have discussed issues of Islam in America and in the world in public fora, both speech and written, and have been reported by "the media" of one sort or another. I personally gain good insights from such channels, as well as chats with local tradesmen who are of Muslim persuasion (although many of them claim to be "unmosqued Muslims", similar to me, an unchurched Theist); certainly better insights into the amorphous moderate Islam than I can get from people who seem only able to talk about US foreign policy, often with stunning exhibits of vincible ignorance, sweeping generalizations, and convoluted rationalizing.
But, so far, despite the threadjackers and trolls who tag along, ALtMuslim is a really great source.