A R C H I V E S
Madinat al-Muslimeen Islamic Message Board
| Spephen schwartz: Two faces of Islam [interview] |
|---|
| Traveler |
| 02/06/03 at 02:50:20 |
| [slm] I happened to watch this interview of Stephen schwarts, the author of the book 'Two faces of Islam' on cspan last sunday, which I thought was very interesting in a strange kinda way. The author has made some startling and upsetting claims about the American muslims and muslims in general and I think is worth listening to. Link: [Removed by Admin] I've listed some excerpts from the interview below to give a glimpse of what he talks about. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- BRIAN LAMB, HOST: Stephen Schwartz, you say in your book, "The Two Faces of Islam," that on September the 17th, 2001, there was a news conference with George W. Bush, the president, that bothered you. Why? [...] SCHWARTZ: Washington mosque appearance. Well, the only problem with the Washington mosque appearance was that the president stood up alongside of a group of American Muslim leaders who, in my view and in the view of a lot of people in the American Muslim community, are advocates for, defenders of, apologists for terrorism and for extremism. It reflected the fact that Wahhabi Islam, the official sect in Saudi Arabia that`s a very extreme form of Islam, had gained a great foothold in the United States and it really dominated, to some extent still dominates the discourse on Islam in America and also to a great extent dominates the microphone, so to speak, in terms of speaking for American Muslims. And I felt, and I know a lot of American Muslims felt, that in the situation following September 11, in the great moral challenge facing the United States and the president, in terms of defining how the republic would deal with this issue, that it was unfortunate that the first steps indicated a lack of awareness of the problem of extremism within the American Islamic community. LAMB: Now, there are a couple other things about that particular session. How many people were standing around the president for that? SCHWARTZ: As I recall the photograph, it was five or six people in the photograph. I was not present at the event. LAMB: How many of them were followers of Wahhabism? SCHWARTZ: To my knowledge, all of them were Wahhabi or what I would say Wahhabi-oriented figures. I know that Nihad Awad (ph) from the Council on American-Islamic Relations was there. I`d have to recheck the name, but someone from the American Muslim Council was there. Now, Musamil Sadiqqi (ph) of the Islamic Society of North America then appeared at the national service in the National Cathedral. All of these figures and all of these organizations -- CAIR, AMC, ISNA -- these are all Wahhabi organizations. These are organizations that are following the Wahhabi dispensation in Islam. [...] LAMB: Going back to your book and your statistics... SCHWARTZ: Right. LAMB: ... you say that 80 percent of the imams in the United States are funded in some way by the Saudi government, the Wahhabi Saudi people [...] LAMB: Are you religious? SCHWARTZ: Yes, I am. LAMB: What kind of -- I mean, are -- conservative, liberal? I mean, what kind of a religion do you follow or... SCHWARTZ: Well, I`m a Sufi. And in my view, being a Sufi means that I aim striving to -- to bring together the three branches of Abrahamic monotheism -- Judaism, Christianity and Islam. [...] LAMB: You say that he[ Imaam Wahab] found himself equal to the prophet Mohammed? SCHWARTZ: Well, yes. Critics of Wahhabism have always pointed out that even though Wahhab really viewed himself as a figure as great as Mohammed and in some respects I would say yes, greater than Mohammed. I mean the Wahhabis really, as I say in my book, they take Mohammed the prophet out of Islam. And, one of the strong arguments in my book is that in traditional Islam Mohammed the prophet is presented as a figure of goodness and mercy and of compassion, and that Wahhabi Islam really takes the mercy and compassion out of Islam. It is a very rigid, very puritanical, very demanding form of Islam that removes everything that made Islam a world spanning civilization. [...] LAMB: If you`re a Sufi, does that make you a Muslim? SCHWARTZ: There are distinctions especially in the West. You don`t have to become a Muslim to call yourself a Sufi but in the Islamic world a Sufi is someone who`s made the profession of faith. [Note Traveler: It is interesting to see he doesn't say what he regards himself to be.] [...] LAMB: Who`s the Muslim Students Associations? SCHWARTZ: The MSA was a very fairly large and widespread group on campuses that from very early on reflected a Wahhabi viewpoint. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Link for transcript: [Removed by Admin] |
| 02/06/03 at 03:50:25 |
| jannah |
| Re: Stephen schwartz: Two faces of Islam [intervie |
|---|
| Taalibatul_ilm |
| 02/06/03 at 03:15:53 |
| [slm] The thing that strikes me most about this interview is that Schwartz doesn't even remember the names of those standing next to Bush, but just calls them "wahabis" because they are leaders of or belong to an American Muslim committee or group. The lies against Imam Abdulwahab, may Allah be merciful to him, are atrocious. How can we listen or even pay attention to a person like this? If any Muslim belongs to a group, he will call them "Wahabis", no matter what they say or do. |
| 02/06/03 at 03:32:48 |
| Taalibatul_ilm |
| Re: Stephen schwartz: Two faces of Islam [intervie |
|---|
| jannah |
| 02/06/03 at 03:55:53 |
| [wlm] I removed the urls. I don't see the difference between them and anti-islamic missionary sites. No to mention any difference between him and Stephen Emerson, Ibn Warraq, etc and the many other people who spread evil about Islam. Not sure exactly why you posted them except to warn us about how anti islamic this guy is? I believe he belongs to the a group of "extreme sufis" in the US who claim to be Sufis but have no affiliation with Islam, and along with that they claim that all the rest of the adherents of Islam in the US(just like the leaders and members of all those Islamic organizations, btw all the major islamic organizations in n. america were there) are terrorists in hiding and support terrorism here and abroad. I think it's best that we dissociate ourselves from such persons. To even discuss their ridiculous ideas is giving them legitimacy. |
| Re: Stephen schwartz: Two faces of Islam [intervie |
|---|
| se7en |
| 02/06/03 at 04:24:20 |
| as salaamu alaykum, Why do interviews like this remind me of the McCarthy Era? Call anyone a Wahhabi and all of a sudden they are extremists and a threat to America, whose civil liberties and basic dignity and value as human beings are worth trampling upon. After the initial emotional reaction, the interview is kind of funny. Host: So.. tell us about Islam. Schwartz: All these Muslims in the United States are Wahhabi. Especially those who are working to protect the basic civil liberties of Muslims, and their constitutional right to express their religion.. those are the *really* bad Wahhabi's, the ones that met with the president at that mosque. Host: Were you invited to the event? Schwartz: No. They're all Wahhabi's though. Host: Do you even know who actually *attended* the event? Schwartz. No. BUT ALL OF THEM ARE WAHHABI'S!! Host: How do you feel about.. Schwartz: WAHHABI WAHHABI WAHHABI!! ::) Has Schwartz ever *been* to an ISNA conference? I assure you, it's not exactly a hot bed of extremist networking ::) Certainly there are extremists in the Muslim community today, [just as they exist in every community of people], but I doubt very much they'll be found in any of the organizations mentioned. Terrorists seek to instill *terror* in the hearts of their enemy; they rarely dedicate their lives, energy, money and time to grassroots efforts, to teach an uneducated public about the basics of their faith. These people are my heroes, and whatever labels they're given by Muslim or non does not take away from the quality of their work and the good standing of their character. May Allah protect us from sharp tongues and hard hearts. wasalaamu alaykum |
| 02/06/03 at 04:32:23 |
| se7en |
| Re: Stephen schwartz: Two faces of Islam [intervie |
|---|
| Traveler |
| 02/19/03 at 23:29:48 |
| [slm] I came across a related article on the author and thought it might be appropriate to post it here. Found at: http://www.atrueword.com/index.php/article/articleprint/46/-1/1/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- American Defends It's Best Self-Interests Author: Ahmed Rehab STEPHEN SCHWARTZ'S self-righteous, half-baked article entitled “America Defends Muslims” banks on a few scattered political events to make the case that America defends Muslims, as if out of an undying love and appreciation for Islam and Muslims. Schwarz seems to make the assumption that his Muslim readers are gullible optimists who will jubilate at the opportunity of being spoon-fed the good news, without bothering to assess it critically. Schwarz writes “I recently asked a leading Turkish Muslim cleric his opinion of President Bush, and he said to me, ‘your president is the guardian of the faithful. He is a companion of God.’” Because of comic citations such as this, I am inclined not to take Schwarz too seriously. But I will take making the argument against his title assertion seriously, because I have heard it made before numerous times, and I want to take this opportunity to respond to it. So let the task begin. I must concede that some of the events Schwarz mentions in his article are true. Yes, America at some point in the past defended Kuwaitis, Afghans, and Chechens. Yes, America continues to defend Kuwaitis even as I write. And yes, America may defend other Muslims in the future. But no, America does not defend Muslims -- not in the manner that Mr. Schwarz hopes for us to believe. America defends its own self interests. Sometimes, by nothing more than sheer chance, Muslims are defended as an indirect consequence. And there is nothing sinister about that. I am an American Muslim; I love America, yet I do not expect it to defend non-American Muslims, except if it were in the best interest of America - and any logical Muslim would expect no more. Mr. Schwarz amounts to nothing but insulting Muslim intelligence by implying that America is on some sort of holy mission to defend Muslims worldwide. Let’s begin with Kuwait. America defended and defends Kuwait simply because of its oil interests in the country, not because of its love for Islam or Muslims. America would probably have not defended Kuwait before its oil was discovered, nor will it likely ever defend Kuwait once its oil dries out. Furthermore, America does not defend Kuwait without hefty monetary compensation from Kuwait. Moving on to Bosnia: America stood on the sidelines during the early critical years of the Balkan war in which the Bosnians were most defenseless. For a good number of years, multitudes of Bosnian Muslim civilians were massacred under the blind eye of Europe and America, in the most brutal campaign to ever take place on European soil since the Holocaust. I have a hard time believing this would have happened had the massacred been Christian. It wasn’t until after hundreds of thousands of Bosnians Muslims were killed, raped, or seriously injured, that Europe and America plodded slowly to do something about it. At one point in the height of the massacres, a UN resolution ratified by Western countries - including America - had prevented Bosnians from buying weapons to defend themselves, whilst their aggressors were left free to buy all the weapons their hearts desired. Next is Afghanistan: firstly in all fairness, I think it can hardly be said that America defended the Afghan Mujahedeen; more accurately, it can be said that America helped the Afghans defend themselves, and not by providing manpower, but weapons. America helped the Mujahedeen simply as materialization of its policy of animosity towards the communist Soviet Union – again not out of an innate love for Islam or Muslims. Once the Soviet Union collapsed and America had no more need for the fighting Afghans, the Afghans were immediately and uncompromisingly dumped from all American reckoning. Indeed, many analysts attribute this sudden forsaking of post-war desperate and depleted Afghanistan as a contributing cause to it becoming a breeding ground for, and a leading exporter of, unabashed radical movements. Similarly, the Chechens were hardly ever defended by America; they were perhaps given infrequent aid by America, and for the same reasons as Afghanistan. But now since the Soviet Union is no more, the still ongoing plight of the Chechens does not remotely register on America’s radar screen. In the years since the Soviet Union collapsed, Chechens have been largely displaced, seen their capital Groznyy obliterated, and had their legitimate resistance militias pounded on a daily basis - during which time America has offered absolutely no assistance, let alone physical defense. In fact, Russia, the aggressor, has been more the one benefiting form America’s assistance throughout the time frame of this conflict. Contrary to the claims of pumped-up propagandists like Schwartz, America’s foreign policy is anything but righteous. And though Muslims may have benefited from it occasionally, it has been less often than not. Let’s take a look. Muslims have suffered greatly as a result of the US-led economic sanctions against Iraq. The sanctions, essentially a cut-off of all trade indispensable to sustaining a civilized society, has naturally stifled all facets of civilian life in Iraq, causing the slow and painful death of hundreds of thousands of the young, the sick, and the old. America’s sentiment on the issue was clearly exposed in a dramatic TV moment in which Secretary of State Madeline Albright – at the helm at the time - was asked if the death of 500,000 children was worth the benefits of the economic sanctions. An adamant, stone-faced Madeline snapped a sharp and unremorseful “yes!” She continued to explain that she thought it was worth it, since it was in the benefit of the American people – clearly and painfully endorsing my argument that America only acts in its self interest. America has long remained quiet in the face of the Palestinian plight. Seldom has it – even if by voice alone - condemned the brutality of the Israeli occupation, or wooed the hardships of the Palestinians. Rather, it has unconditionally supported the aggressor, not just with words, but with billions of dollars, and billions more in weapons – weapons used to occupy and kill the Palestinians. America continuously ignores the fact that Israel is the country standing in defiance of the highest number of UN resolutions in the world; and America is only one of three countries (the other two being difficult to identify on the map) that consistently vetoes any major UN decision reprimanding Israel for breaking humanitarian international laws. America has impulsively gone on violent sprees against Muslim populations, even with little or no international support. In defiance of the whole world, US planes bombed Sudan claiming its planes were out to destroy a weapon manufacturing plant. Later, it became apparent that the American planes had in fact bombed one of the few and much needed medicine manufacturing plants in Sudan. To this day, America has remained hushed up about the incident, in hopes to keep the embarrassment brushed under the carpet. Another false assertion often advertised is that America’s foreign policy is propelled by a desire to make this a free world of blossoming democracies. America is often publicized as the leader of the free world, and the main exporter of democracy. That is why America is after Iraq, we are told by the archangel Bush (in addition to defending Muslims in Kuwait of course), to replace the dictatorship of Saddam with a just democracy of the people. Let’s talk reality. American foreign policy is not about removing dictators and replacing them with democracies as many would have us believe. It is no secret that America supports many dictatorial, and - in some instances - terrorist regimes throughout Latin America, the Middle-East, Africa, and Asia – for varying self interests. For example, and staying within the Muslim world, America supports and even cooperates with the current Algerian regime, which apart from being built on the ashes of an assassinated democratic experience, is engaged in a chaotic reign of terror and torture. America knows that for each dictatorship it supports, and for each regime of terror it condones, millions of innocent civilians suffer, and hundreds of thousands lose their lives. Having said that, I could probably never argue with conviction that America’s foreign policy is an inherently evil policy. I would just argue that it is a selfish policy with simply one goal in mind, and that is to increase America’s power, wealth, and influence. That in itself is not as troubling to me as seeing someone purposely misleading the public by concealing that fact, sugar-coating reality, or even worse dispersing flat out lies. We must be brave and honest enough to call spades as spades. You can argue that America’s foreign policy must be the way it is in order for it to remain atop a difficult world of many aspiring powers, but you cannot argue that it is righteous. Of course, I would love it if America was in fact bound by a mission to spread democracy and justice, even if against its materialistic interests. And I would love it, if it indeed defended Muslims for the sake of justice. But I expect neither, as should everyone. That explains why I gawk at Mr. Schwarz’s deliverance of good tidings expressed in his passionate dénouement: “America defends the victims of oppression and aggression. America will defend Turkey. America defends Muslims. Let these words be heard everywhere the Islamic call to prayer is heard, from Morocco to Malaysia, in Baghdad… and in Paris, Berlin, and Brussels!” I would like to shout Halleluiah to that, but no – America defends its self interests. --- Ahmed Rehab is a freelance writer. |
| Re: Stephen schwartz: Two faces of Islam [intervie |
|---|
| bhaloo |
| 02/20/03 at 00:29:30 |
| [slm] [slm] [quote author=jannah link=board=ummah;num=1044517820;start=0#2 date=02/06/03 at 03:55:53]I believe he belongs to the a group of "extreme sufis" in the US who claim to be Sufis but have no affiliation with Islam, and along with that they claim that all the rest of the adherents of Islam in the US(just like the leaders and members of all those Islamic organizations, btw all the major islamic organizations in n. america were there) are terrorists in hiding and support terrorism here and abroad. [/quote] The kind of extremism displayed in the article is very common these days. I've run into so much of this type of stuff. I remember reading an article attacking a "wahhabi scholar" and it didn't include his name. And as I read the article, I was amazed at how little knowledge this person had, certainly many of the people on this board had more knowledge then him. Some time later, I came across another site that had found the sheikh that was mentioned in the article. And the sheikh responded beautifully and clarified everything, and it was amazing how his words were twisted around to try and discredit him. [quote] I think it's best that we dissociate ourselves from such persons. To even discuss their ridiculous ideas is giving them legitimacy. [/quote] I totally agree. |
| Re: Stephen schwartz: Two faces of Islam [intervie |
|---|
| UmmZaid |
| 02/21/03 at 01:17:03 |
| [slm] I actually plowed through as much of Schwartz's book as I could. He's a "Sufi?" Pht. Yeah right. Schwartz *does* quote from some "Sufi texts" and scholars in his book but he also slams people who are known to be "Sufis" or "Sufi friendly," and apparently is unable to make any distinction between various political, social, and religious groups of Muslims in this country or anywhere else. We're all "Wahabis." Any Muslim who actually prays, has a beard, wears hijab, or was in the MSA in college is a "Wahabi." In his mind, Imam Zaid Shakir, Sh. Hamza, Muzzamil Siddiqi and Imam Siraj are among the "Wahabis." Actually by reading Schwartz's book, you wouldn't know he actually attempts to claim anything that comes out of Islam (b/c despite the attempts by the Spoofies to claim otherwise, the fact is that they draw upon Islam)... I thought Schwartz was some kind of Modern Orthodox or Conservative Jew who is also extremely pro-Isra'il. Oh yes, in Schwartz's book (literal and figurative), any criticism of Isra'il = Wahabi. Anyone who dares criticize the "Secular" Jewish State is a danger to the United States. Which is why he focuses so much energy on Nihad Awad, CAIR, MSA, HLF, and AMJ. His tirade, or book, whatever, is just as bad as Emerson and Pipes (whom he relies upon as sources), only he attempts to make it less "hateful" by trying to claim this grand Sufi tradition as ... well, whatever. One thing about Pipes and Emerson is that they don't even bother to dress up their hate or hide it, and actually, I prefer that... I'm sure we've all realized by now that when people who hate Islam and write for newspapers like the "Post" and so on want to make it look like they don't hate us, they trot out Rumi and the rest of the Sufis. If these people actually knew anything about the role of the Sufis in the Chechen resistance, or if they had read the writings of classical scholars, they'd be jumping up and down and hooting and hollering about the "Wahabi rhetoric" of Imam al Ghazali or something. ::) Because they associate taking Islam seriously with this "Wahabism." And it also helps the attempts of the Shayateen to divide us along the denominational types of lines that the Christians used. The worst part of his book, aside from all of the lies on the Muslims, is his poor research. How does a book like this get published in the first place? He makes numerous claims which he can not back up and which he gives no source or proof for. I never defaced a library book before, but when I had his book in my hands, I was really tempted to write on the frontspiece a warning to any and all who might pick it up next. |
| 02/21/03 at 01:19:32 |
| UmmZaid |
Madinat al-Muslimeen Islamic Message Board |