Update: The CIP-Muravchik File, 2007
1. In 2007, the Center for Islamic Pluralism posted the following statement
in support of Dr. Daniel Pipes of the Middle East Forum, after the latter was
criticized by Dr. Joshua Muravchik of the American Enterprise Institute.
On Daniel Pipes
and the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy
By Center for Islamic Pluralism
June 14, 2007
Daniel Pipes of the Middle East Forum is an American scholar with significant
academic credentials in the study of Islam and a long record as an investigator
and opponent of radical trends in the global Muslim community. His views are
often controversial and he is targeted for abuse by many Muslim extremists and
their sympathizers. But his knowledge of Islam, the Arabic language, and related
topics is thorough. He received his doctorate from
The Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy (CSID) is a Washington-based think tank that professes to support moderate Islam, with a target audience primarily in the U.S. Government. It is partially funded by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a Congressionally-financed program headed by Carl Gershman. Pipes and others have criticized CSID, and have questioned the wisdom of NED in supporting CSID. CSID’s record in identifying and promoting people it views as moderate Muslims is suspect, and NED’s decision to support CSID is worse.
Put simply, CSID is a front for some of the most obnoxious members of the
“Wahhabi lobby” in
A core element among the CSID founders consisted of individuals prominent in
supporting Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) leader
Sami Al-Arian, who has been convicted
in a
Abdulwahab Alkebsi is NED’s main coordinator of Islamic programs and is a former Executive Director of CSID. His prior career included a post as deputy director of the now-defunct American Muslim Council (AMC), an Islamist group.
Sullivan and
As for NED and CSID, the problems in their relationship are, from our perspective, simple and few. First, Gershman, NED’s head, and others like him, have no expertise as interpreters of Islam. They are disoriented and lost in dealing with Muslims. Second, NED has created a value system that rewards radical Muslims when they do not commit continuous acts of violence and especially if they embrace electoral processes.
Pipes understands that the radicals cannot be judged by their strategies for
gaining power but by their intentions once they get power. In the most
significant recent example, the “soft-Islamist” AKP of Recep Tayyip Erdogan has,
in the latest Turkish electoral battle, posed as a party committed to secular
and clean governance. Yet in its views on Muslim religious minorities like the
18 million Turkish Alevis (Sufi-Shia secularists), as well as other issues
including the status of Christians in
Similarly, many Westerners are thrilled to see the Egyptian Muslim
Brotherhood proclaim itself a movement that seeks power through elections rather
than through armed struggle. Such Westerners want to give the MB the benefit of
the doubt, but the MB continues to support Hamas in
Pipes has drawn a line against the radicals and refuses to cross it. He
understands, as we understand, that until the extremists give up their ideology,
their vision for a “democratic” imposition of an Islamic state remains
dangerous. In some respects it is even more dangerous than the violent jihad of
Al-Qaida, because it lulls Westerners into a state of incaution.
NED, in funding CSID, has shown that it cannot draw such a line. It wishes to
convince itself and others that as long as those who excuse terrorism in
Now, however, comes an associate of Gershman, Joshua Muravchik, who assails
Daniel Pipes in Contentions, a blog run by
Commentary magazine [see]
Therein, Muravchik writes, “Pipes’s case against Gershman is that the NED
supports the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy (CSID) and that
Gershman himself spoke at its 2004 annual conference… I think his attack on
Gershman is off-base… I don’t buy Pipes’s take on the CSID or his criticism of
Gershman for involvement with it. I myself am a member of CSID and spoke at its
2006 conference. In addition to speaking, I attended the entire weekend. I found
it an interesting mix. It included Islamists or Islamist-sympathizers who called
themselves democrats… I don’t expect genuine Muslim democrats to blackball
Islamists who call themselves democrats. I expect them to argue with them.”
Muravchik, like Gershman, overlooks many aspects of the ongoing
transformation of the Islamic world, in which the confrontation with radicalism
is the central contemporary issue. We may summarize the difference between their
viewpoint and ours by noting that the RAND Corporation recently issued a report
titled Building Moderate Muslim Networks, the basic sentiment of which we
support.
What we might call the RAND-Pipes-CIP approach begins by identifying leading,
tested, and long-established moderate tendencies and personalities that already
serve as alternative advocates to Islamist ideology. Such elements are numerous
in the Muslim global community or umma,
but are seldom sought out or privileged to gain media access in the West. RAND
includes, in its survey of established moderates, the indigenous European Muslim
communities in the Balkans and, at the other end of the globe, mass movements in
Between the Balkans and southeast Asia and beyond, many such moderates exist:
Sufis and traditional Muslims in French-speaking West Africa, Morocco, Algeria,
Egypt, and even Saudi Arabia; the previously-mentioned Turkish Alevis;
increasing numbers of critics of the unworkable and unpopular clerical regime in
Iran; new exponents of Islamic thought in the post-Soviet Muslim republics
striving for democracy; profoundly resilient Sufi and secular trends in
Pakistan; the mass of Indian Muslims, who participate in that country’s
democracy, and many more.
The Muslim Brotherhood and other radical Islamists are often praised in the
West for the social and other services they provide, in the absence of proper
policies by corrupt governments in Muslim countries. But the Indonesian NU and
Sufi institutions throughout the umma
have provided such benefits for centuries, without recourse to extremism. The
Islamists imitate the authentic moderates in this area, so why not first
establish dialogue with those whose record in religious works is clear?
We believe supporting the known moderate tendencies in Islam, rather than
attempting to fit Islamist radicals into a moderate category by exaggerating the
adaptation of the latter to democratic forms such as voting, represents the more
sensible and strategically-focused approach for Westerners. But to enable the
moderates in opposing Islamic radicals one must understand the corpus of
moderate theological arguments and antecedents. Furthermore, to assist the
moderates in defeating extremism the purview of Islam must be extended beyond
the Arab world, which, along with
Because NED defines “modernity” simply as voting, it cannot penetrate the
essential religious issues that serve as pretexts for Islamist radicalism. These
involve yearning for a “purified” Islam, shorn of its past intellectual
pluralism and spiritual traditions, and a repudiation of secular governance – an
“Islamic Reformation” that has led in every prior case to violence, even when it
does not begin with violence. This vision of an ideological state, supposedly
religion-centered, is reflected in the notable and demagogic Muslim Brotherhood
slogan, “Islam is the Solution.” Such a state will be exclusionary and
backward-looking, whether it is established by voting or shooting.
We believe that Western help in the triumph of moderate Islam requires
escaping from certain rigid frameworks. Getting beyond the Beltway is the first
step; adopting a sound perspective on the theological roots of Islamist ideology
is a second; moving away from a fixation on the Arab states is a third;
understanding what Islamists seek, rather than what they do with ballots and
bullets, remains the summary issue.
We know the Islamists well. Some of us have participated in CSID events, but
ceased to do so when it became apparent their goal was merely to camouflage
radicals as moderates. We recognize the difference between challenge and
argument directed to them, something we constantly pursue, and providing
Congressional support and cachet to an institution like CSID that certifies them
as moderates and democrats when their previous record has been radical and
anti-democratic.
However one agrees or disagrees with Daniel Pipes, he knows who the real
moderates are in Islam because he knows the history and theology of Islam.
Others may be excited to hear that the Muslim Brotherhood has sworn off violence
in
We also note that Joshua Muravchik states that he does not “like the term
‘moderate Islam.’” The Prophet Muhammad said, “I want my
umma to be a community of moderation.”
That suffices for us. There is a reason the radicals want to be considered
moderate, and it is not merely to gain Western acceptance; it also lies in the
deep desire we believe exists in the worldwide Muslim majority, to follow an
Islam that serves as a normal religion, providing for the spiritual needs of the
umma, rather than extreme forms of
political mobilization.
Islam is not a sound-bite topic. There is a large gap between the Western
intellect and Islam. That is the problem that CSID claims to address, that NED
says it is concerned with, and that impends on the future of humanity. But for
Western intellectuals to help close this gap they must first learn about Islam
and its existing moderate currents, and they can then propose effective means
toward avoidance of the “clash of civilizations.”
We will close with a comment recently received from a Bosnian Muslim,
discussing the Wahhabi invaders who are fighting to take over Islam in the
Balkan region: “I used to gaze into their faces, and believe me they are more
than ready to kill us: ordinary Bosnian Hanafi Muslims. I clearly see it as I
see this day. The only thing that prevents them from conducting that is the
state, law enforcement and their small number which guarantees them complete
disappearance if they commence such an adventure... They will kill us first. I
have no doubt about that. We are their first and last targets; accepting Islam
you transformed yourself into their target.”
Daniel Pipes is not a Muslim. But like us, he has looked in the faces of the Islamist radicals and has seen the danger they represent for the world. He has also recognized the authentic moderates, and hopes to make them primary in the deliberations of Westerners. On this, we support him in his criticism of the NED and CSID.
Stephen Suleyman Schwartz, Executive Director
Prof. Salim Mansur, Canadian Director
Nawab Agha, Shia Affairs Director
Jalal Zuberi, M.D., Southern U.S. Director
Prof. Khaleel Mohammed, Western U.S. Director
Imaad Malik, Fellow
Dr. Muravchik did, however, address identical e-mail letters to four of our signatories, dated July 16 and 17, 2007. The body text of the e-mails, which were addressed to Prof. Silay, Prof. Mohammed, Dr. Zuberi, and Prof. Mansur, follows:
“I was surprised to see your name as a signatory to a statement issued on
June 14, 2007 by the Center for Islamic Pluralism that criticizes the Center for
the Study of Islam and Democracy and Carl Gershman, the President of the
National Endowment for Democracy, and me.
“I was not surprised that Stephen Schwartz might pen such a thing. He
has an obsession with me, and attacks almost whatever I write on any topic.
But I was surprised to see the signatures of serious scholars appended to the
statement, which in any event was three thousand words long and reads much more
like a polemical essay by a single author than the kind of joint statement one
normally sees.
“Therefore I wonder if you did in fact sign this statement, if it represents
your considered opinion. Or perhaps Stephen Schwartz is using your name.
“Please be so kind as to let me know the answer.
“If you wish to discuss it with me, my home number, at which I can be found
most of the time, is [redacted].
‘With all best wishes,
“Joshua Muravchik”
3. On July 17, 2007, Prof. Mansur replied to Dr. Muravchik as follows:
“Dear Mr Muravchik:
“This note is in reply to your letter. I find what you write, to state most mildly, rather odd.
“I signed the statement that Stephen Schwartz wrote in response to your Commentary column on CSID in agreement with the content and the critique offered, and as a member of the Center for Islamic Pluralism (CIP).
“I do not know you in person, nor have I any reason to share your views about Stephen Schwartz with whom I have worked for sometime now. I did not view the response of Stephen Schwartz, to which my name and those of other members of CIP were attached, to your Commentary column as a personal or vindictive attack. You write in the public space, as I do and Stephen Schwartz does, and such writings will invariably generate responses and none of this should come as a surprise or be construed as malicious.
“I am copying this response to Stephen Schwartz as a matter of ethics and courtesy, since your letter referred to him.
“Sincerely,
“Salim Mansur”
4. The same day, July 17, Dr. Zuberi replied to Dr. Muravchik as follows:
“Dear Mr. Muravchik:
“Mr. Schwartz, as the director of CIP, is an associate with whom I
collaborate when needed. His moderate voice is a breath of fresh air in the
climate of extremism coming from both sides: the radical Islamists as well as
their new-found allies from the MSM and the liberal left.
“The statement that I signed, along with other members, was carefully drafted
to register our concerns for your criticism of Daniel Pipes’ well known position
against the Islamo-fascist elements in the
“Lastly, in the writing business, while it is expected that many people will
not agree with one’s expressed views, it is simply preposterous to assume that
an acclaimed journalist and a best selling author of the stature of Mr. Schwartz
would stoop to the level of unethical behavior of using other people’s name
without their consent.
“Sincerely,
“
5. On July 21, 2007, Prof. Mohammed replied to Dr. Muravchik as follows:
“Dr. Muravchik
“My signature was appended with my approval. I do know some of the members of CSID, and hold them in great esteem. That being said, I however do feel that some of the positions are censurable and hence supported S. Schwartz. I suggest that you should contact him directly.
“km”
6. Unsatisfied by these clear and courteous replies, Dr. Muravchik replied to
Prof. Mansur and Dr. Zuberi as follows:
“July 17, 2007
“Dear –,
“In that case perhaps you would tell me on what you base your accusation that
Abdulwahab Alkebsi is one “of the most obnoxious members” of the “Wahhabi lobby”
in America.
“Thank you,
“Joshua Muravchik”
7. On August 6, 2007, having received no replies from Prof. Mansur and Dr.
Zuberi to his Alkebsi plea, Dr. Muravchik wrote another note, as follows:
“Dear –:
”I want to be sure you got my follow up question below. I look forward to
hearing from you.
8. Having been pressed on the matter, Dr. Zuberi replied as follows:
“Mr. Muravchik:
“I really don’t have time to argue with you on the details of the statement
that was put out on our behalf by the CIP. In my opinion, the statement should
be sufficient on its face value to explain our combined position on the matter.
You were wrong initially to assert any impropriety on the part of CIP executive
director, Mr. Schwartz that he would be using our names for any of his personal
agenda. Instead of realizing your mistake, you seem to be pushing the matter for
no productive reason at all.
“As far as Mr. Alkebsi, his CSID bio itself states:
“ ‘Prior to his appointment at CSID, Mr. Alkebsi served as Executive Director
of the Islamic Institute and as Deputy Director of the American Muslim Council
(AMC). He developed AMC’s Legislative Agenda, and AMC’s policy position on the
Faith-based Initiative.’
“That the AMC was a major element in the Wahhabi lobby is common knowledge
and everybody also knows that Grover Norquist's Islamic Institute played a
similar role.
“I consider continued engagement with you on this matter as a fruitless
exercise and a waste of valuable time. If you have a real need for any further
clarifications on the CIP statement, it would be more appropriate to direct them
to its executive director, Mr. Stephen Schwartz.
“Take care.
“
9. Dr. Zuberi’s concluding message was considered by CIP a sufficient
response to the entreaties of Dr. Muravchik.
Stephen Suleyman Schwartz
Executive Director
Center for Islamic Pluralism
Washington