THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT: PATRON OF ISLAM? By Daniel Pipes and Mimi Stillman* The U.S. government has, almost without realizing it, developed a position toward the religion of Islam, not in theological terms but regarding such issues as Islamism and terrorism in the name of Islam. Whether Republican or Democrat, the leaders' statements defend Islam as a moderate and peaceful religion which extremists distort; more surprisingly, they also promote Islam in the United States. Islam has dominated American public life on contexts, that tradition is still a strong one. two occasions, once during the period of the When the “Real IRA” killed twenty-eight at Iranian hostage crisis from 1979 to 1981, a fair in Omagh, Ireland,(1) the U.S. and more recently since the attacks against president did not seize the opportunity to the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on ruminate on the true nature of Catholicism. September 11, 2001. In both instances, Baruch Goldstein’s murderous rampage in Americans responded with outrage and Hebron spurred no commentary on Judaism puzzlement to the sight of ostensibly pious by the secretary of state. The Bharatiya individuals (Ayatollah Khomeini then, Janata Party, with its Hindu nationalist Usama bin Ladin now) sponsoring outlook, prompted no high-level analyses of unprovoked violence against American Hinduism on its coming to power in India. civilians. Each time, Islam became one of The same used to be the case with Islam. the most discussed topics in American In theory, anyway, it still is. At a festive public life. dinner she held for American Muslims in But the U.S. government responded very 2000, then-secretary of state Madeleine K. differently to the Islamic dimension of these Albright informed her guests that, “Of two episodes. In that first round, it stayed course, the United States doesn’t have a aloof from the debate, limiting itself to political policy towards Islam.”(2) One of policy pronouncements on Iran. Islam was her staff confirmed this on the operational mentioned hardly, if ever, in keeping with level: “Islam is not a factor in our the time-honored and acceptable practice of policymaking.”(3) U.S. officials saying little about matters of But this is simply not true anymore. faith. After all, these were politicians and Islam, the most political of religions, now diplomats, not scholars of religion. enjoys a privileged place in Washington, just “Discoursing” on Islam was not exactly their as it does in almost every capital around the specialization, and they were humble enough world. The first Bush administration began to know it. the discussion of Islam in June 1992. On But the reticence ran deeper: as coming to office in 1993, the Clinton spokespersons for the U.S. government, a administration developed a fairly subtle constitutionally secular institution, they policy toward Islam. Policy formulation knew not to articulate views on the truth or accelerated in the present Bush falsehood of specific religions. In some administration. And since September 11, the Middle East Review of International Affairs, Vol. 6, No. 1 (March 2002) 49 Daniel Pipes and Mimi Stillman president and his team have devoted Whenever the topic came up, the lesser intensive efforts to explaining what role ranks dutifully lined up behind their Islam did and did not play in the recent superiors. Deputy Assistant Secretary of tragedy. “Islam” now trips off the tongues of State Ronald Neumann found “no inherent American statesmen, politicians, and conflict between Islam and the West. We do diplomats with an almost dizzying not see any ‘clash of civilizations.’”(9) frequency. Special Advisor to the Secretary of State While the intensity of the current debate John Beyrle found that “it makes no sense to is new, the substance of current U.S. see America as a nation ‘in conflict’ with government statements on Islam is not. The Islam.”(10) According to a State Department latest statements develop the themes and fact sheet, “Islam and the West are not in arguments of a policy articulated over the confrontation.”(11) Even the Department of past decade. That policy has four main Defense, not usually concerned with such elements, each of which has become a policy matters, had an opinion: according to Deputy mantra: There is no clash of civilizations. Assistant Secretary Bruce Riedel, “The Terrorism is not Islamic. Islam is compatible Pentagon rejects the argument that a clash of with American ideals and adds to American civilizations is imminent between Islam and life. Americans must learn to appreciate the West.”(12) Islam. As a corollary, officialdom argued against the idea that Islam had been CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS promoted to the status of enemy. “We The first and most urgent task that should not accept the notion,“ said R. James government spokesmen tackle is Woolsey, former director of the Central contradicting the idea that the Cold War has Intelligence Agency, that “the ‘Red Menace’ been replaced by a “clash of civilizations.” that dominated our lives for nearly a half a Samuel Huntington of Harvard first century is now being replaced by a ‘Green proposed the idea in 1993; in his catalog of Menace’ sweeping throughout the Arab possible conflicts, a “clash of civilizations” world.”(13) Assistant Secretary of State for between Islam and the West loomed Near Eastern Affairs Edward Djerejian large.(4) Over and over again, officialdom asserted that the U.S. government “does not asserts the falseness of this idea. President view Islam as the next ‘ism’ confronting the Clinton himself argued with Huntington, West or threatening world peace.”(14) declaring it “terribly wrong” to believe in Martin Indyk, at the time serving on the “an inevitable clash” between the West and National Security Council staff, broadened Islam. To support his point, he called on the the point: “We do not regard Islam as a authority of U.S. Muslims, who “will tell threat.”(15) The only crack in the façade was you there is no inherent clash between Islam provided after September 11, when Deputy and America.”(5) More disdainfully, Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz Albright noted that “The United States has implied that Samuel Huntington did not no interest in the ‘clash’ with Islam that create the problem, he only diagnosed it: some commentators have predicted.”(6) To “These criminals … want to inflame a war the contrary, there is “no inherent conflict of the cultures, and we should avoid between Islam and the United States.”(7) that.”(16) Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs Samuel R. Berger echoed TERRORISM IS NOT ISLAMIC the theme: “There is no clash of The second task the U.S. government has civilizations.”(8) taken upon itself is severing the common 50 Middle East Review of International Affairs, Vol. 6, No. 1 (March 2002) The United States Government: Patron of Islam? association Americans make between Islam group in Algeria was acting against “the and terrorism. Officialdom does not deny principles of Islam,” according to Robert that devout-seeming Muslims are constantly Pelletreau, who also moonlighted as trying to kill Americans, but it vociferously assistant secretary of state.(24) R. James denies their connection to Islam. Woolsey, the former director of the Central President Clinton complained about “so Intelligence Agency, considered it “a major many people” unfairly identifying “the mistake” to blame Islam for the state of forces of radicalism and terrorism” with affairs in Iran today, and specifically for the Islam.(17) As he acknowledged, “we have choice of its leaders to rely heavily on terror. had problems with terrorism coming out of Woolsey argued that “a few men” who had the Middle East” but he then insisted that broken with Islamic traditions alone were this “is not inherently related to Islam, not to responsible for the situation in Iran.(25) the religion, not to the culture.”(18) A Michael A. Sheehan, the State Department’s Department of State fact sheet echoed the coordinator for counter-terrorism, called president: “Terrorism is not a principle of terrorism “a perversion of the teachings of any major religion, including Islam.”(19) Islam.”(26) Beyrle checked his copy of the And the department’s coordinator for Qur’an and concluded “that extremism is not counter-terrorism, Philip Wilcox, Jr., went truly Islamic.”(27) “Terrorists who claim to still further: “Islam, like Christianity and speak for Islam,” averred Wilcox, “are Judaism, preaches peace and non- abusing their faith.”(28) violence.”(20) The events of September 11 brought this Some Muslims may preach non-violence. issue to center stage. Interestingly, while all But how do politicians and diplomats government officials agreed that the four account for the stubborn fact that Muslim hijackings could not be ascribed to Islam, radicals have attacked Americans in such they differed among themselves on the diverse locales as Lebanon, Yemen, Kenya, question of whether it was simply, as the Philippines, New York, and Wolfowitz put it, “not an Islamic act”(29) or Washington? By deeming such attacks something done in actual contravention of contrary to Islam. In 1994, Clinton criticized Islam. “the forces of terror and extremism, who President Bush’s speech to Congress cloak themselves in the rhetoric of religion pointed to the first interpretation: and nationalism but behave in ways that contradict the very teachings of their faith The terrorists practice a fringe form and mock their patriotism.”(21) He returned of Islamic extremism that has been to this topic in 1998, accusing Usama bin rejected by Muslim scholars and the Ladin and his associates of engaging in “a vast majority of Muslim clerics; a horrible distortion of their religion to justify fringe movement that perverts the the murder of innocents.” He dismissed them peaceful teachings of Islam ..