Moving Beyond Rhetoric in Fighting Terror

Continued from page 1

The United States is spending millions, if not billions, of dollars on public diplomacy programs to educate the Muslim world about America and its values. If we turn around then and utilize incendiary terminology like "Islamo-fascism," then we do a disservice to these counterterrorism efforts. The main parameter for success in this public diplomacy is whether the message will resonate with Muslim communities around the world. If I were a betting man (Islam forbids gambling), I'd wager that the term "Islamo-fascist" will fail to get much traction in Cairo or Karachi and will only serve to alienate people there. I am sure that even in Mr. Jasser's hometown of Phoenix that term will not resonate among Muslims. As American Muslims leaders, we have a responsibility to speak the language of the people we serve in order to realize the change that we all agree is necessary.

Too often we use the "Islamic" adjective to describe terrorists and terrorism without ever using the "Islamic" label when describing moderates. In doing so, we are giving in to the exploitation of Islam by extremists like Osama bin Laden, who want to cloak their nefarious and destructive ambitions in Islam and strip moderates of their Islamic legitimacy. We should be promoting the views of those who seek change without terrorism by giving them a voice and a place in the public sphere rather than marginalizing them.

It's not the meaning of terrorism or fascism that should be the center of debate. We all know these evils, and we all work to reject these strains of social ailments in our communities. What we should be debating is the term "moderate." Is it a moderate who goes to powerful politicians and right-wing groups to tell them what they want to hear and to support the status quo policies? Or is it a moderate who tells our administration, our Congress, and our media what they need to hear and how they need to change their policies and perspectives to be more effective in ridding the world of terrorism?

I argue for the latter. As long as any Muslim religious leader renounces terrorism as an instrument of change, we should be working with that person, even if his views are "conservative." By winning the support of so-called "conservatives," we will be able to reach out to those segments of the community that need the most attention.

Leaders who simultaneously oppose religious extremism and openly criticize our government's policies are our strongest allies in winning the hearts and minds of the Muslim masses. We cannot afford to work with false moderates who only support U.S. policies in order to gain millions of dollars in financial aid, and then turn on us once they achieve influence in the region.

It is not bin Laden we aim to change, for that is a fantasy. Rather, we should be winning over the audience bin Laden works to influence, an audience who will determine whether we succeed in anti-terrorism efforts or not. I hope Dr. Jasser agrees. We need to fine tune our language in order to be more effective in that struggle, rather than relying on sweeping generalizations and finger-pointing. That style is getting old and it does not advance America's interests in the Muslim world one inch.