« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

A Call for Moderation in the Muslim World

One of President Obama’s first acts in the war on terror was to officially de-emphasize Islam and its role in that fight. But in the Islamic world, Malaysia’s Prime Minister Najib Razak is going in the opposite direction: engaging and mobilizing Islam to win the war against extremism. In a conversation I had with him in New York City this week, he explained why this is the right way to go.

Located in Southeast Asia, Malaysia is a country of more than 28 million, and the true definition of a melting pot.  A former British colony, Malaysia is home to four major, and completely different ethnicities – Malay, Chinese, Indian and the indigenous people of the region.  Although the official and predominant religion is Islam, this is a country where the constitution guarantees religious freedom.  Living in peace together are Muslims, Buddhists, Christians, Hindus and more.  This is a state that not only tolerates those faiths other than their own, but in fact celebrates them.

Much of Malaysia’s peace and prosperity is owed to the reformist and moderate policies of the country’s Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak.  At the United Nations this week, Najib laid out a path for peace between warring elements between the extremist elements of his Muslim brothers.  Calling for a “movement of the moderates,” Najib hopes to show the rest of the Islamic world what a peaceful, harmonious, open society looks like.

In his speech to the UN this week, Najib said that the battle is not between Islam and other religions but, “between the moderates and extremists” in each religion including his own. He also noted that as a broader society, “we have inadvertently allowed the ugly voices of the periphery to drown out the many voices of reason and common sense.”  For instance, the preacher in Florida had the right to burn the stack of Qur’ans recently, a right that many Americans have fought and died for, but as countless clam, rational adults have said, including the World Evangelical Alliance, a group of Evangelical Christian ministers, it was not in the preacher’s best interests or the interests of Christianity and the United States as a whole for him to do so.  Besides the un-Christian nature of burning a foundational book of someone else’s religion, the spectacle would have given radical Muslim terrorists the perfect recruiting tool.

In Najib’s Malaysia, Islam does not look like Wahhabi traditions practiced in Saudi Arabia, and other Middle East nations, and by those like Osama Bin Laden.  As Najib explained to me in an interview in New York this week, a fundamental tenet of Islam is peace, just as it is in Christianity.  In the late 15th Century Catholics in Spain took an extremist view of their religion (and as a Catholic myself, my religion) and tortured and detained all those who would not bend to their faith.  Of course today, you won’t find Catholics, or any Christians for that matter, stringing someone up in a dungeon for not following the same faith as them.

Through Najib’s moderate Islam, women aren’t segregated from society or restricted from an education or holding meaningful jobs. For instance, in Malaysia, women are not restricted from going to school as they are in Muslim nations in the Middle East.  More than 60% of higher education students in Malaysia are women, a number that rivals that of the United States. Fozia Amanulla, is the C.E.O. and executive director of EONCAP Islamic Bank, and one of the first women to lead a bank in the Islamic world.  That’s not a small feat for a majority Muslim society and an example that should be heeded by other Islamic nations.

Prime Minister Najib also sets an example on how a Muslim country can have constructive relationships with the US, and other Western countries.  As a major trading partner with America, Malaysia has really come into it’s own, its economy growing at more than 6% a year, a statistic that seems only a distant memory to the current stagnant economy here in the states.  As a contributor of military personnel to Afghanistan, a country that stood by the US and called for tough sanctions against Iran, and a nation that works with American educational institutions to share knowledge and students, Malaysia is a shinning example of how a majority Muslim country can embrace democracy, multi-faith and multi ethnic policies and become a peaceful, productive member of modern civilization.  As Najib told the assembled world leaders at the UN, he hopes his call for moderation can bring about “a just, equitable and durable peace.”

Follow Brad on Twitter

COMMENTS

  • tomarmstrong

    You might want to read a little history. If you did, you would find that the Inquisition took place in the context of the battles to re-take Spain. From whom? The Islamic peace-mongers who invaded and took over, with much raping and pillaging. Doesn’t excuse excesses by the Church, but it does give it a little context.

    Likewise, the much maligned Crusades were in direct response to the sacking of Rome, Vienna and many points in between. By whom? The Islamic Peace Mongers again… some background info here: http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2010/02/crusades-response-to-islamic-aggression.html

    • jb13

      But the crusades were not in response to the “sacking of Vienna” or of Rome. The very blog post you cite to buttress your point makes clear that the Crusades came in response to a string of defeats suffered by the Byzantines in Anatolia. Muslims didn’t reach Vienna until 1683, long after the Crusades had ended.
      If you wish to say that Muslims have a long and bloody history of aggression, then fine. But get your facts straight, please.

    • aesthete

      If you mean that the Inquisition was done in the context of the all-but-won Reconquista, then yes, that is correct. However, the Inquisition had nothing to do with winning a war against Muslims, and was not advocated for under those pretenses. The intent was to promote a Catholic orthodoxy in the Spanish kingdoms in order to consolidate these regions, appease the Pope, and increase the political authority of the monarchy. It was in no way a conservative reaction to Islamic threats, but a radical redefinition and a disruption of the social conventions and rules regarding the second-class status of Muslims and Jews in the Christian kingdoms. It was, in fact, sparked by Dominican complaints about “crypto-Judaism”: if I recall correctly, Jews were not the ones involved in the Reconquista — yet, they were the primary target of the Spanish (and later, the Portuguese) Inquistion.

      The Crusades are more complex than what you give them credit for being: after all, their original goal of helping the Byzantines regain their lands was completely forgotten by the time that the various armies had reached the Holy Land. The Crusades had absolutely nothing to do with Vienna (which occurred much, much later under the Ottomans) or the partial sack of Rome in the 9th Century (which had more to do with France and the later establishment of the Norman Kingdom of Sicily than it did with the Crusades). Certainly the later Crusades cannot be said to have any such rationale, stemming more from the politics of various Italian city-states than from any legitimate fear of Islamic invasion.

      As the poster upthread said, please get your facts straight.

  • ss396

    Of course today, you won?t find Catholics, or any Christians for that matter, stringing someone up in a dungeon for not following the same faith as them.

    Northern Ireland isn’t all that far back in the past, though. Yes, it was eminently and fundamentally political, but the political split was along religious fault lines. It always does come down to power, doesn’t it?

  • Superheater

    You see a great deal of failing among many overtly religious folks-people are in herently flawed.

    But you don’t see

    Hassidic Rabbis, Carmelite Nuns, Mormon Missionaries, Evangelical Ministers, Bhuddist Monks or a myriad of other individuals expressing the highest degree of adherence to their faith..

    Blowing themselves up on buses or in weddings, engaging in piracy on the high seas, flying planes into buildings, cutting people from ear to ear, defecating in others’ houses of worship..

    Why should they moderate? They get what they demand.

    http://www.danielpipes.org/8913/two-decades-rushdie-rules

  • Jack_Savage

    ” As Najib told the assembled world leaders at the UN, he hopes his call for moderation can bring about ?a just, equitable and durable peace.?’

    Something tells me that “just and equitable” means that Israel is blown off the map and the United States should reimburse whoever does it.

    Excuse my cynicism, but I will withhold the benefit of the doubt for now. Perhaps Muslims could first try not blowing people up, just to see how that works.

    • http://www.jihadwatch.org zeevjabotinsky

      There are serious problems with jihad in Malaysia.

      This was their recent prime minister:
      http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/01/former-pm-of-malaysia-jews-had-to-be-periodically-massacred.html
      Jews “had always been a problem in European countries. They had to be confined to ghettoes and periodically massacred. But still they remained, they thrived and they held whole governments to ransom,”

      ^^^ That’s what you call a prime minister of a moderate country?!

      More examples of ‘moderate Malaysia’:
      http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/06/malaysia-rop-wa.html

      One of the global jihad fronts in the tree southern Thai provinces is fueled by Malay jihad.

      I agree the long term solution is to leverage non-jihadist Muslims but this article is a pure whitewash of a sad Malay reality.

      • aesthete

        It is overly-optimistic to label Malaysia a “moderate” country yet, though it is moving in that direction.

        • JSobieski

          Malaysia is not moving in a moderate direction. Islamists are become more strident in Malaysia just as they are in “moderate” Turkey.

          The data points point in a negative direction.

          • Doc Holliday
          • aesthete

            so I could be wrong.

    • aesthete

      from Islamic sources is that he is too soft on Israel and that he is a handmaiden of Western interests. Doesn’t necessarily mean that he is sincere, or that his opponents’ characterization is accurate, but there it is.

    • JakePrime

      I don’t know the details about Malaysian’s Prime Minister, but that’s a bit of a stretch. I can’t see how just, equitable, and durable peace is the same thing as blowing Israel off of the map. I also doubt that Malaysia has any real beef with Israel considering that they are no where near each other and have no real interaction as far as I can tell.

      • Jack_Savage

        But I was getting the definition of “just and equitable” from the Islamist’s Dictionary. And the American Left has no interaction with Israel, but that sure doesn’t prevent them from from their despicable anti-semitism.

  • spinoneone

    and go to the archives to see what “moderation” is truly like in Malaysia. Yes, the PM may be a moderate, but he doesn’t actually rule the various States. They set internal laws which frequently are more restrictive of non-muslims than the national laws imply. Just try burning a Qu’ran in Malaysia and see what happens. A bible, the Book of Mormon, or a Hindi tract? Not so much.

  • http://www.youaremysmile.com trippy

    Just wait until the Left converts to Islam, that will be the end of the world right there.

  • RedBeard

    There is no “moderate” Islam. There are either people who follow the Koran, or those who do not. The latter people are in serious danger of being labeled apostates, and given the lethal Islamic penalties for admitting that, it’s no wonder so many people hide their apostasy under the guise of “moderate” Islam.

    I don’t know Najib Abdul Razak’s mind, but he is either just another lying Islamist finagler or he is a good man fearfully walking a tightrope while hoping he doesn’t get his throat slit. In either case, the problem is Islam itself.

    • http://www.redstate.com/etcartman Kenny Solomon

      Robert Spencer ran up something earlier this morning that…….well……… I’m not gonna comment, because there’s nothing I can really add to make the point clearer about our own “peace partners”.

      Via a report from The International Herald Tribune:

      Pakistan: Lahore High Court upholds death sentence for blasphemy.

      This is the second case of its kind in the country when the death sentence of a blasphemy accused has been confirmed by the LHC since inception of the blasphemy law.

      ————

      Direct link to the article at The Express Tribune – The International Herald Tribune: http://tribune.com.pk/story/56578/lhc-upholds-death-for-blasphemy-accused

  • http://www.jihadwatch.org zeevjabotinsky

    ‘moderate’ Malaysia:

    http://www.cathnewsasia.com/2010/11/08/malaysian-boy-caned-over-non-halal-food/

    • JSobieski

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11705032

      The religious composition of Iraq is going to look increasingly like Egypt. There was a vibrant Coptic Christian community in Egypt, and now its under 10% of the population and people are getting weeded out.

      The same thing is happening in Iraq. There was an ideological component to Iraq that Bush just didn’t get. Letting Sharia law be enshrined in the Iraqi and Afghani constitutions (yeah, that same Sharia law that Hannity talks so much about now) was a big and long lasting error. It breaks my heart. GOD BLESS THOSE WHO SERVE IN THE US MILITARY!

  • Pingback: GOOGLE'S ANNOUNCEMENT !

  • Pingback: kizi

  • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

    So far everything in the western world has been defined as a recruiting tool for Islamic extremists. It has really become an over-used and ill defined concept. One has to question why we even care what offends a group of people who become murderous at the sight of a cartoon. The fact that we are alive and not submissive to them makes them mad.

  • http://thesandsinstitute.org Vassar Bushmills

    …the mid-eastern Arab. The further removed from the Red Sea they are, the more they are ameliorative and moderate The old Ummayads (Arabs) of western Africa were never of this sort. This is why i defend Islam, but not this modern prostitution.

  • throwback59

    American and Western traditions more than the American President does.
    What’s wrong with this picture?

  • remnant60

    are different than the Saudi ones…maybe it’s the island thing…and they are different than the ones we have in the States…for the most part. (at least from the anecdotal evidence I have)
    I have a friend from Malaysia that most folks would consider a hippie…yet he is Muslim.
    And before all of the “hardcores” start dropping bombs, yeah, he’s never said anything pro or con about 9-11. I think he doesn’t want to deal with that at all…hence the “hippy” designation. Head in the sand.
    This chap just wants to get along with his life, and enjoy jazz and pop exported from the US.

  • aesthete

    but as a rule of thumb, burning someone’s book that you don’t like isn’t the way to a rational, reasonable discussion about the compatibility of Islam with liberal values (and the fact that our preacher friend in Florida’s first instinct was to go that route doesn’t exactly make me think that his own understanding of liberal values is what you’d call masterful).

  • remnant60

    more ameliorative and moderate because of distance, or because of the disparity of culture? Or because of lack of numbers? (see France)

  • remnant60

    I’m thinking that these folks that have had a taste of the fruits of what the idea of America provides need to be in our “long range” picture.
    Just a footnote to what needs to be done now, and that is GOTV.

  • http://thesandsinstitute.org Vassar Bushmills

    …Arabs and Berbers of west Africa are indeed less violent, and non-Arab Muslims, even Persian Sunnis, have never displayed the historic prone to violence the Arabs have. Can’t say why, just an observation on my part, but the Ishmaelitesd were not described as wild hares for nothing, I guess.

  • aesthete

    I’m guessing a bit of both those factors and the historical characteristics of Islam: historically, Islam spread peacefully in Indonesia and Malaysia, as well as some parts of Africa, mostly through trade (in contradistinction with its violent spread in the West, India, and most of mainland Asia).

  • http://xmmlbchat.blogspot.com katesmith

    First, I thought everyone figured out that the US cannot rule itself worried about what might make those guys mad, make them kill a few people, or what not. Second, a nice conversation indicates nothing. Plenty of people talk nicely, such as Imam Rauf who is a giant con man. That’s what ‘global, man of peace’ con men do. I thought that was obvious as well. Further, geography doesn’t mean all that much. Transcript from CNN interview 8/13 with devout Muslim woman journalist, self described bleeding heart liberal, but is concerned with how women are treated at mosques in America. Which should be no surprise either. “(Asra) NOMANI: Yes, I’d love to hear about that second mosque that allows women to pray in the front row because a survey by CAIR revealed that in the early 1990s, half of the mosques in America required that women pray behind a partition, and that number has only increased to two-thirds. So there’s been growing conservatism. And that growing conservatism is part of this larger, global ideological movement that is bringing ideologies like Wahhabism and Salafism into our shores here in America. I know it because my little mosque in Morgan Town, West Virginia, was taken over by Wahhabi and Salafi ideologues who believed that women had to take the back door, sit in a balcony. And for these last seven, eight years, I’ve been going around the country, getting thrown out of mosques, because they don’t want women in the main halls. And so the women –

    KELLERMAN: Miss Nomani, I would like to interrupt you just for a second because we’re running out of time.”…Scroll down about 3/4 of the page to interview with Asra Nomani, a contributor to The Daily Beast.

  • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

    Please. The very concept that those who command death for the publication of a cartoon can have a rational, reasonable discussion is a farce. Islam – as described in the Koran and practiced in Sharia law – is not compatible with liberal values or even western values. Let us not pretend that it is compatible.

    The pastor in Florida is not the issue. The issue is that we once again blame the exercise of freedom as the reason for their hatred and homicidal tendencies.

    What are your definition of liberal values? How does the burning of the Koran harm liberal values?

  • Common_Cents

    Neither is flying planes into buildings.

    I’m sorry, but if your religion incites you to act violent over a cartoon or a book burning, you have the wrong religion. I have zero tolerance for violence over that.

  • JSobieski

    Is rational discourse on this topic possible? Its barely possible over here–over there? Forget it.

  • aesthete

    the Qu’ran is, indeed, the “Holy Qu’ran” believe that Islam is about forcefully imposing one’s religion on others through law. Whether the personal beliefs of said Muslims run into conflict with Islam from a doctrinal standpoint is an open question. (In candor, the evidence that the two are in conflict seems very strong to me.) However, it is absurd to think that one will engender an engagement of those issues (or further any other positive developments along those lines) by burning someone else’s holy book.

    Agree or disagree with him, Martin Luther didn’t burn a stack of Bibles when he criticized the doctrines of the Catholic Church, he penned the 95 Theses. Friederich Hayek didn’t toss a bunch of Communist Manifestos to show his contempt for Communism, he rebutted its central idea (and confronted its moral challenge) through a series of books and counter-arguments.

    Book-burning was done predominantly by enemies of the liberal tradition both populist and elitist, and for good reason: book-burning isn’t an attempt to sway someone through reason, faith or one’s convictions, it is the assembling of a mob united only in its steadfast desire to wish away or destroy ideas through brute force of majority force, and carries with it the implicit threats of bullying, coercion, and violence that come with the historical and philosophical territory of book-burning. I am emphatically against criminalizing book-burning, but not seeing the illiberality of symbolic mob violence inherent in book-burning is incredibly naive.

    The GZM is very similar to the book-burning (though less explicitly illiberal), given that its expressed aim of fostering ecumenical unity is clearly not being served by the controversy over the mosque. In both cases, both parties are free to do what they wish under law, but let’s not pretend that they’re being noble in their actions, or cut them any slack for ostensibly being on our side. I know of very few who place the blame on us and our freedoms for the riots in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Even progressives generally restrict themselves to talking about our foreign policy, and not our domestic liberality, as the problem.

  • JSobieski

    and I agree that it would have been better for the Florida pastor to invite someone like Robert Spencer to give a speech than it is to burn a Koran.

    All of that being said:
    (1) The absence of anyone out there supporting his right to do it was striking
    (2) Sometimes you have to be provocative in response to a bully.
    (3) The threat of a book burning should not result in massive threats of violence, and that is exactly what happened
    (4) Given the prior threats of violence (Muhammed cartoons, draw Muhammed day, Van Geogh, etc), a strong response in contrast to meek acquiesence was appropriate

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    was to kill them,, and hence Jefferson’s war v Barbary pirates

  • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

    As I said in the previous post, the pastor in Florida and the threat to burn the Koran is not the issue. The issue is the incessant cry that: “_______ will only lead to the recruiting of more terrorists!” Are you seriously telling me that the exercise of our freedoms should now be governed by whether or not they will meet with the approval of the Muslim world?

    The promoter of the GZM now claims that to not build the most will serve as a recruiting tool for terrorists. Should we bow to that pressure as well?

    The shocking part is not the pastor in Florida but the fact that so many now bow to the threat of Muslim recruitment. Those that do are already halfway to slavery.

    I would go so far as to say that the burning of the Koran had no net impact whatsoever on terrorist recruitment.

  • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

    P.S. Luther did not burn the Bible but he publicly burned the papal bulls and some of the other works written against him.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
  • aesthete

    2 and 4 can be accomplished through means that do not implicitly emulate threat of mob violence, as third-world savages and dictators worldwide do, and it is troubling that many of those who defended the pastor’s Constitutional right to burn books are so blind to these implications and the illiberality of that form of protest. As you say, inviting someone like Spencer would have accomplished 2 and 4 in ways that enhance the debate, rather than having a battle of dueling incoherent mobs (protip for the pastor: the third world savages will always be better at anti-intellectual third-world savagery than you).

  • http://www.scragged.com petrarch

    This “moderate Muslim” is the guy whose own government, of which he is the Prime Minister, appealed a court ruling saying that non-Muslim Malays were allowed to use the world “allah” to refer to a God other than the Muslim one – given that in Malaysian “allah” is the only word for God?

    http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-01-03/malaysia-court-rules-catholic-paper-can-print-allah-update1-.html

    “The Malaysian government today filed an appeal against a High Court ruling allowing a Catholic newspaper to refer to God as ?Allah?, the official Bernama news service reported, citing a statement from the Home Ministry.”

    Hogwash. Time to study up on taqiyya.

    http://islam-watch.org/Warner/Taqiyya-Islamic-Principle-Lying-for-Allah.htm

    That sort of “religion” deserves no respect or consideration from civilized men – as Jefferson well knew and understood.