A few weeks ago, I posted some comments\u00a0 concerning Muqtedar Khan\u2019s
\nresignation from the Progressive Muslim Union that sparked a rather lively
\nexchange between myself and some of his defenders in the blogosphere.\u00a0 <\/p>\n
I ended up removing the original entries from the blog after a few days.\u00a0
\nI did so out of my own ambivalence about PMU\/MWU and because I realized that
\nsome my off-the-cuff remarks could have been phrased more judiciously (not to
\nmention weren\u2019t intended as my definitive statement on the matter) .\u00a0
\nHowever, I remain convinced that the broader concerns I raised were and remain legitimate
\nand important enough to warrant a more considered and consolidated treatment.\u00a0 <\/p>\n
First off, I should note that this isn\u2019t personal, contrary to the Secondly, my comments concern the political consequences of his writings and Thirdly, I find this discussion quite distasteful\u2013I\u2019d love to focus on cheerier topics\u2013but the stakes involved here and the fact that these issues aren\u2019t being openly discussed in the media make me feel obligated to openly express my concerns.<\/p>\n Muslims are on the front line of another, far less discussed \"struggle\", the struggle for In light of how problematic a number of Khan\u2019s political views\u00a0 would seem to most people So, I see this as being about more than Muqtedar Khan or about me.\u00a0 At the risk of There\u2019s no denying that Khan makes positive contributions to the To me, he seems to play a maddening game of political \u2018Good Cop\/Bad Cop\u2019 (compare his infamous \"Memo to American Muslims\" <\/a>to his excellent \"Domestic Dimension of the Arab-Israeli Conflict\"<\/a>; it\u2019s hard to see how the same person could\u2019ve written these articles, as the latter could be read as a critique of the former).\u00a0 I\u2019m hardly alone in these concerns (as the I also have to note how Khan\u2019s disturbing letter of resignation from the PMU (which can be My close interaction with PMU has taught me three things, (1) that Such charges do not have the ring of Another problem with this polemical letter is that though it come from a pundit known for holding forth at length on the \"progressive Muslim agenda\" it makes absolutely no attempt to grapple with the difficult\u00a0 issues that PMU, for all its problems and obvious misteps, and indeed all progressives are trying to address.\u00a0 Khan makes it sound like PMU issued a fatwah that alcohol was no longer haram<\/em>:<\/p>\n But not to observe Islamic values after recognizing them as such to me is a sin. The reality is far more complex, as what really happened is that PMU leaders defended a person\u2019s right to choose to drink alcohol in the privacy of their homes free of harassment by other Muslims.\u00a0 In essence, they said that it\u2019s nobody\u2019s business but Allah\u2019s.\u00a0 <\/p>\n Yet Khan portrays this as a simple case of secularists bent on undermining Islamic values.\u00a0 That\u2019s one possible reading, I suppose, but Any reasonably constructive and fair critique of PMU\u2019s admittedly amibigious policy on alcohol (something which I have also expressed grave concerns), especially by an ally, would concede that there is a possibility that this is an honest attempt by PMU\u2013which is made up a lot of different kind people with different ideas and beliefs- to live up to the Quranic To those who find this assessment overly critical, I can only suggest that they take another look at\u00a0 his political writings and consider how these\u2013despite the regular stream of feel-good pronouncements about Islam and the Muslim community\u2013frame key issues The article in Z Magazine mentioned earlier lays out some eye-opening examples of cases of where From my perspective as an American Muslim, though, the most disturbing example is how Khan In my previous postings, I also expressed dissatisfaction with his factual
\nassumptions of some of my respondents.\u00a0 Were I to discuss the politics of,
\nsay, Paul Krugman or William Safire with the same candor, no one would accuse me
\nof violating the rules of Islamic adab<\/em>, as they are public figures by
\nvirtue of their prominence in the media.\u00a0 \u00a0I see no reason for it to
\nbe otherwise here.\u00a0 The fact that Muqtedar Khan is a fellow Muslim and
\nmember of a small community shouldn\u2019t make him exempt from constructive criticism.
\nPublic feedback comes with the territory when you\u2019re a pundit, especially one
\nwith a taste for controversy.\u00a0 Also, providing that feedback to society\u2019s leaders\u2013whether in government or in the media\u2013is also a critical part of being a citizen in
\nany democracy worth the name, being second in importance only to voting among civic duties.<\/p>\n
\nstatements in the mainstream media.\u00a0 I make no attempt to assess his
\nscholarly output. In other words, I\u2019m talking about his work as a pundit, not as
\nan academic.<\/p>\n
\nAmerica\u2019s<\/em> soul, especially its civil rights legacy and its tradition of a
\ndynamic, balanced media. And Muslims are taking heavy casualties these days.\u00a0 Though
\nthey would seem by virtue of their dual heritage as both Muslims and Americans
\nto be the West\u2019s most valuable and obvious asset in the War on Terror, the American political establishment has yet to treat them that way and, consequently, few American Muslims feel
\nsecure enough today to contribute their opinions freely to the debate.\u00a0
\nFacing a mainstream media with little interest in understanding Muslim concerns
\nand vicious vilification campaigns by pseudo-patriots bent on demonizing all Americans (especially Muslims) who do
\nnot toe this administration\u2019s line, many Muslims have chosen to remain silent in
\ndebates in which they have every right to participate freely and in which their
\nvoices are desperately needed.\u00a0 This is as tragic for America as it is for
\nMuslims, as the War on Terror will never be won so long as Muslim Americans are
\nprevented from participating freely in the debates of their great nation.<\/p>\n
\nin the American Muslim community, I find the almost complete absence of public
\ncriticism of his politics by Muslims to be highly conspicuous, and seemingly
\nsymptomatic of the problem discussed above.\u00a0 It seems to me that many
\nMuslims, even prominent leaders, are so afraid of losing their credentials as
\n\"moderate Muslims\"\u2013which in this time of overzealous and sometimes woefully
\nignorant security officials could be the only thing between your average Muslim and an
\nextended stay in Hotel Guantanamo or some other abomination against the
\nConstitution\u2013that they remain silent even when Khan makes distrubing public statements that seem designed to provide political support to the Bush
\nadministration\u2019s wrongheaded and disastrous policies.<\/p>\n
\nsounding melodramatic, this is about the health of our democracy and the right
\nof Muslims to contribute to their nation\u2019s debate freely and without fear of
\nbeing labeled extremists for merely exercising their constitutional right to dissent with some of their government\u2019s policies.\u00a0
\nThis includes challenging pundits, journalists, and leaders in the public square when we think they
\nget things wrong.<\/p>\n
\ndebate.\u00a0 His writings often contain declarations and arguments that are
\nclearly sympathetic to Muslims and Muslim views, and he
\nperiodically fires off loud broadsides at Sharon, Bush, or some other eminently deserving target.\u00a0 However, assessing a public figure\u2019s impact on the debate is more than just tallying the\u00a0 number of complimentary things
\nhe\u2019s said or written.\u00a0 It is ultimately about assessing their net impact<\/em> on the debate, <\/em>which I see as the
\nextent to which they have contributed to an improved understanding of\u00a0 the
\nmost pressing and\/or misunderstood issues confronting the public and policymakers\u00a0 On that
\nscore, I think Khan record is a bit mixed, however good his intentions may be. <\/p>\n
\nOne minute, he invokes the slogans of the Left and presents himself as the progressive activist and champion of the Muslim community.\u00a0 The next, he is subtly
\nendorsing many of the neocon claims, prejudices and double-standards that are
\nstrangling the American body politic.<\/p>\n
\nprotest by Muslim activists against his inclusion on the PMU board<\/a> and the attack on his\u00a0 post-9\/11 politics<\/a> in Z Magazine<\/em>
\nin January 2005 show) and I doubt many informed observers will\u00a0 be all that
\nsurprised by them.\u00a0 While he protests loudly that he is on the \u2018left\u2019,
\nmany fellow leftists would question that characterization. I think that only in a neocon-dominated Washington could Muqtedar
\nKhan be passed off as a liberal.<\/p>\n
\nread in its entirety at
\n
\nLivingTradition<\/a> and has been eagerly promoted elsewhere online) seems to fit into the Good Cop\/Bad Cop routine I\u2019m talking about.\u00a0 \u00a0While I personally do not find him a credible spokesman for progressive Muslims given his neocon-light politics, he has presented himself as a champion of the cause of progressive reform and has at times written insightfully on the topic (e.g., his \"Is MuslimWakeUp.com
\nUndermining the Progressive Muslim Movement\"<\/a>\u00a0 makes some valid points), so I find it hard to understand how he could resort to such reactionary rhetoric, the kind of propaganda that is used by extremists use to demonize all <\/em>liberal Muslims and reformers.\u00a0
\nHe writes:<\/p>\n\n
\nclearly I am not sufficiently indifferent to the teachings of Quran and
\nthe traditions of the Islamic heritage<\/strong><\/span> to be a \"good Progressive
\nMuslim\";
[emphasis added]<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\nconstructive criticism from a kindred spirit or even a former ally, but rather the shrill tenor of
\nfighting words from a sworn enemy who is out to discredit hated opponents and paint them as the enemies of God.\u00a0 \u00a0Such a declaration is doubly immoderate and inflammatory when coming from\u00a0 a
\nMuslim leader who presents himself as the champion of reform, progress and tolerance.\u00a0 \u00a0<\/p>\n\n
\nI cannot for example in good conscience approve of alcohol consumption by those
\nwho acknowledge it as forbidden. To demand that I do so in order to remain a
\nmember of the community<\/strong><\/span> is exactly the kind of oppression that I though we had
\ncome together to fight.
[emphasis added]<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\nit\u2019s hardly one I\u2019d expect from a self-described progressive leader who
\ntries to lecture\u00a0 reformers like Khaled Abou El Fadl on the need for jurists to allow the \"democratization of interpretation<\/em><\/span>\"<\/a>.\u00a0 Quite to the contrary, it\u2019s the kind of paranoid, kneejerk reaction one would expect from the extremists that he\u00a0 criticizes so loudly in the major media.<\/p>\n
\ndictum, \"There is no compulsion of religion\" and refrain from imposing beliefs on others.\u00a0 A fair critique would acknowledge the fundamental difference between advocating something and defending the right of others to make their own moral choices.\u00a0 In short, a fair critique would concede that one can be against the kind of religious vigillanteism one encounters among some Muslims without condoning sin.\u00a0 Khan seems oblivious to these possiblities as he attacks PMU with everything he\u2019s got.\u00a0 <\/p>\n
\n(e.g., the War on Terror, Islamic fundamentalism, Muslim anti-Semitism, the
\nIsraeli\/Palestinian conflict, extremism within the American Muslim community,
\n\u2026) in ways not unlike that of Muslim-bashers.\u00a0 For all his good
\nintentions, his writings on current affairs have a distressing tendency to
\ndovetail surprisingly well with the Islamophobe narrative of Muslims being the
\nroot of all contemporary evil\u2013always victimizers and never victims\u2013and the
\ncorollary that non-Muslims who oppress Muslims are ultimately justified in
\nvarious ways by \"the facts\" of history (in other words, anti-Muslim violence is always an understandable reaction to Muslim misdeeds). <\/p>\n
\nKhan\u2019s commentary seems to provide diplomatic cover for the neocon agenda that
\nhe claims to vehemently oppose, and there are analogous examples from the
\ndomestic American arena of his analysis playing into the hands of the Muslim
\ncommunity\u2019s worst critics.\u00a0 <\/p>\n
\nregularly validates the canard that CAIR and other Muslim organizations have a history of being
\nsoft on terrorism (which in this political climate translates into them
\nsupporting terrorism).\u00a0 This
\ndemonstrably false and
\nrepeatedly disproven<\/a> \"fact\" is one of the most potent weapons in the necons\u2019
\nrhetorical arsenal and is ceaselessly exploited\u00a0 to fan\u00a0 prejudices against Islam and deny Muslims a\u00a0 voice in the American
\npolitics (after all, civilized people don\u2019t dialogue with people who \"support terrorism\").\u00a0 \u00a0
\nUnfortunately, whenever the media needs a seemingly moderate Muslim to give this
\npolitically motivated slur against the whole Muslim community a patina of
\nobjectivity, he the guy they generally turn to.\u00a0 The
\nbottom line is that every time he re-affirms that odious, dangerous
\nmisconception, however innocently, he undoes much of the good he\u2019s done in other arenas. <\/p>\n
\nanalysis (as opposed to his politics) on the Muslim community.\u00a0 I compared him to my favorite media
\nwhipping boy, Thomas Friedman.\u00a0 In my opinion, Khan is occasionally prone to generalizations and oversimplifications of
\nvital issues that demand careful analysis.\u00a0 \u00a0Like Friedman, he is intelligent, playful and thought-provoking.\u00a0 The problem is that the thoughts he elicits on some of the most important
\ntopics far too often end up being predictable ones that reinforce widespread misunderstandings
\nand oversimplifications (e.g., the tired old charge that Muslims have been supporting terrorism).\u00a0 These simple, politically safe formulas play well among non-Muslim observers, but that doesn\u2019t make them any less counterproductive in the final analysis.\u00a0 \u00a0(Until very recently most of even the most superficially informed American observers were absolutely, unwaveringly, convinced they knew<\/em> all about <\/em>Iraq\u2019s vast hoard of WMDs, and probably saw endorsements by Muslims of Bush\u2019s rhetoric on WMDs as signs of singular courage and insight rather than the misinformed speculation and\/or political posturing that they were.)\u00a0 \u00a0Like Friedman, his witty and memorable quips sometimes dumb
\ndown the debate and obscure key\u00a0 facts\u00a0 rather than provide new insights or much needed context.\u00a0 In other words, his analysis reinforces rather than challenges the reigning orthodoxy that has gotten us into this mess.<\/p>\n