Looking for “Good” Muslims: Rand Study Recommends New Approach to Dealing with Islam

By Ahmed Nassef

In March, the California-based Rand Corporation released a report entitled “Civil Democratic Islam.” The report, by Rand senior political scientist Cheryl Benard, surveys Muslim trends and movements around the world and in the West and attempts to present a strategy for US and European policymakers on how to best deal with Islam in the post-9/11 climate.

Benard’s premise is that it is in the interest of the United States to prevent a “clash of civilizations” by fostering an Islam that is “democratic, economically viable, politically stable, socially progressive, and follows the rules and norms of international conduct.” She then goes about identifying the various thought trends within the Muslim community, and to make recommendations on how to best engage with them.

Ironically, the report itself is peppered with notions of “us” and “them” that seem to affirm the very concept of a clash of civilizations. Reading it, one gets the impression of listening in on a private conversation, not meant to include Muslims, a report meant for Washington insiders on how to best deal with “them” Muslims. As such, it is probably not much different in tone from the doubtless hundreds of memos written by well-meaning white liberals in the 1960’s on how to best deal with the “Negro problem.”

With that in mind, however, Benard’s report contains many useful insights. The bottom line, according to Benard, is that if the US and other western governments are serious about defeating Muslim extremism, then they have to actively support the tendencies within Islam that are closest to the West’s stated liberal aims. The problem, she maintains, is that both governments and media have largely ignored liberal trends within Muslim thought, choosing instead to promote conservative ideologies which represent a minority view, especially among Muslims in the West.

They do this for a variety of reasons. For one, Muslim conservatives, whom Benard groups under “fundamentalist” and “traditionalist” labels, make for better photo opps—they look and dress the way the media expects Muslims to look and dress. What’s more, because conservatives control most mosques and Muslim organizations in the US and Europe, they’re easier to find, and their mosques provide a perfect opportunity for political leaders to repeat grand gestures about their commitment for religious tolerance.

However, Benard asserts, although conservatives are highly visible, they are not representative of the larger Muslim community. “European and U.S. studies alike indicate that fundamentalists and traditionalists are in the minority,” she writes. “Their ability to speak for Islam and to define its public perception greatly exceeds their numbers and real significance.”

Liberals on the other hand, whom Benard splits into “modernists” and “secularists,” are not organized and are poorly funded. Although they represent a majority among the millions of Muslims living in the West, they are much more assimilated into society and are difficult to identify, since on the whole they don’t belong to any existing Muslim institutions.

To her credit, Benard doesn’t see the Islamic journey in the West to be much different from that of other faith traditions:

Modernism, not traditionalism, is what worked for the West. This included the necessity to depart from, modify, and selectively ignore elements of the original religious doctrine. The Old Testament is not different from the Quran in endorsing conduct and containing a number of rules and values that are literally unthinkable, not to mention illegal, in today’s society. This does not pose a problem because few people would today insist that we should all be living in the exact literal manner of the Biblical patriarchs. Instead, we allow our vision of Judaism’s or Christianity’s true message to dominate over the literal text, which we regard as history and legend. That is exactly the approach that Islamic modernists also propose.

So, Bernard concludes, it only makes sense to encourage those trends that are calling for a reinterpretation of Islam, not add credibility to the literalists and ultra-conservatives.

But Benard fails to tackle the role of US foreign policy in encouraging Muslim conservative movements, primarily through its strategic relationship with extremist theocracies like Saudi Arabia and its financial and military backing of authoritarian regimes like Egypt. By actively aiding anti-Democratic police states that prohibit civic participation, US policymakers have only encouraged the growth of extremist Muslim movements. In many of these countries, fundamentalist movements such as the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas, through their schools and hospitals, have become the only sustaining component of the social fabric.

But perhaps such fundamental criticism of US foreign policy is too much to expect from the Rand Corporation, a semi-governmental organization with close ties to the “national security” industry. Among other things, Rand is credited with the doctrine of “staggered deterrence” that ultimately led to Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), known as “Star Wars.” Discredited by most experts, it was revived by the Bush neocons soon after taking office.

I had a chance to interview Cheryl Benard by email about her report. She currently resides in Doha, Qatar.

A graduate of the American University of Beirut and the University of Vienna, where she received her doctorate in political science, Benard is the author of several books, including most recently, Veiled Courage, about the civil resistance to the Taliban in Afghanistan.

MWU!: Muslim WakeUp! wasn’t mentioned in your report, but we’re wondering how you’d classify us--fundamentalist, traditionalist, modernist, or secular?

Cheryl Benard: A terrible oversight. I have now studied MWU! with interest. I must already take issue with your logo. As far as I personally am concerned, sleep IS prayer. “Which of your lord's blessings would you deny?” In my case, not that one. Seriously, I feel that your website is a hybrid diaspora product that has not yet completely developed its identity—I don't mean that in a negative way. It’s more of a commentary on current events, much of it would overlap with a secular student website, some wrangling with ISNA.

MWU!: Many of the proponents of “modernist” views are often strongly opposed to US policy, while many avowed secularists (the Iraqi National Congress, for example, or a large percentage of the Iranian exile community) hold very pro-American views. Is your classification of “modernists” and “secularists” too simplistic?

Cheryl Benard: In the Middle East or the Muslim world, one is not a modernist or a secularist on the basis of American policy, but on the basis of what one thinks one’s own society should look like. The two topics are independent of each other.

MWU!: Is there a difference between what you call “modernists” and the growing movement of “progressive Muslims” in North America?

Cheryl Benard: “Progressive Muslims” is just a label. You have to look at what they stand for on a case-by-case basis.

MWU!: Do you think it is beneficial to US foreign policy interests to encourage Muslim “modernist” or “secularist” movements, even if these movements oppose US foreign policy? In other words if the choice is between supporting a pro-American theocracy (a la the Saudi royal family) or a democratic movement that opposes US presence in the region, what should be done?

Cheryl Benard: Actually, I do think that. Because ultimately, our (the U.S.) interests are defined by the things we truly stand for, not the short-term decisions that are often driven by tactical or even selfish considerations of one or another administration. To support oppressive, anti-democratic regimes for short-sighted reasons erodes our soul as a country.

MWU!: Your report urges active engagement with and support for Muslim modernist movements and thinkers, but won’t direct support for such groups be used by fundamentalists to label them as sell-outs?

Cheryl Benard: First, support does not have to be overt and public. Second, Wahhabi money discredits those who receive it in the eyes of many, including many Muslims, but that doesn’t detract all that much from the kind of muscle and exposure this money buys for its recipients. Third, they'll get labeled as sell-outs anyway. Nothing will alter the hostility of fundamentalists towards modernists. They’re considered to be tools of the West anyway, they might as well have some of the benefits that go along with that. At least this way the playing field will be a bit more level.

MWU!: Have the US policy in Iraq and the Bush administration’s “War on Terrorism” helped or hindered pluralistic trends in the Middle East?

Cheryl Benard: I was not an advocate of the Iraq action. Ironically, however, it seems to me that this policy has somewhat helped pluralistic trends in the Middle East. For several reasons. It woke people up; made them realize the urgency of the situation; motivated them to fix their own society before some lumbering elephant came in to do it for them. I am now living in the region. I have been truly impressed by the level and liveliness of the local debate, especially on the part of young people.