Read the following text, adapted from “Radical Islam, Liberal Islam” by M.

American foreign policy currently faces a critical menace from the Muslim World in the guise of burgeoning, embedded anti-Americanism in the Muslim World. That has already bred a catastrophic attack on America, two wars, and a significant compromise of American democracy. It is therefore of utmost importance that anti-Americanism in the Muslim world be addressed, extenuated and even reversed.

The root of Muslim anti-Americanism is twofold: the manifestly unjust consequences of American foreign policies; and the casting of America as the “designated other” in Islamist discourse. Islamist discourse has concocted the idea of an Islamic civilization diametrically opposed to a caricaturized West. Islamists define the West as imperial, morally decadent, ungodly (secular). Western power and values are vilified as the source of all Muslim grievances. They proceed to envisage a reinvigorated Islamic civilization depicted as just, moral and god-centered. Thus, the routing of the West and the rebuffing of Western values are sine qua non conditions for the revival of Islam.

Independence from the West has ever been the overriding goal of political Islam. Failure to achieve that goal, compounded by real and perceived injustices committed by America and its allies, has grafted vitriolic hatred of America in the hearts of radical Islamists. They and their hate mongering are perverting the moral fabric of the Muslim World and subverting Islam’s message of justice, mercy, submission, compassion and enlightenment.

It is my contention that the best anti-dote to radical Islam is liberal Islam, which is sympathetic to liberal values. Islam is essentially a set of revealed values designed to help prod humanity along the path to enlightenment and virtue. Many such values were nurtured in the heyday of liberal Islam in Islamic Spain, under Emperor Akber in Mughal India and under the Abbasid caliphate in the heartlands of Islam. The atmosphere of religious tolerance under their rule was comparable to the best of times in America. Educational and scientific fervor was at its peak and pluralism was widely practiced. Indeed, Islam was a byword for learning and culture.

“Moderate” is commonly taken to mean lukewarm. This is misleading and demeaning. Moderate Muslims can be best understood as having achieved a negotiated peace with modernity. They treat it as the existential condition of our time while submitting to the message of Islam. By grasping the distinction between historical Islam and Islamic principles, they are able to bridge the gap between text and context through rational interpretation.

Moderate Muslims, who favor peace without being pacifists, are critical of American foreign policy for the Muslim World. They too denounce the prejudiced view of Islam in the West. Muslim moderates refuse, though, to blame the West or modernity for all the afflictions besetting the Muslim World.

Islamists, both moderate and radical, use an imaginary, caricaturized version of the West as a foil for Islamic identity. Islam is the reverse of the West: it is moral, it is just, it is righteous and it is not secular. This image of the West in the minds of many Islamists is partly the consequence of a radical reading of Syed Qutb’s diatribes against secularism and modernity in Nasserite Egypt.

Islamists, however, are not alone in their misrepresentation of Syed Qutb. In a recent article in the New York Times Paul Berman argued that it was Qutb’s philosophy and understanding of Islam that provided the ideological underpinning for Al Qaeda and its affiliates. The revulsion of liberalism and the desire to preserve Islam from the cultural impact of modern secularism combined with a desire to become martyrs in the cause of Islam, Berman argues, are the cornerstones of Qutb’s ideology. He also insists that while Qutb is indeed critical of the US, its perfidious foreign policy and its support for Israel, he does not really focus on it. Qutb, according to Berman, and in my opinion correctly, is more concerned with ideas, values and norms that shape society than with geopolitical conflicts.

Berman also holds that it is not American foreign policy but the challenge of liberalism, particularly its morality that vexes Qutb. By implication, the US __________ change its foreign policy but those motivated by aversion for liberalism will continue to seek the downfall of the West as long as its culture continues to influence the world, the Muslim World in particular. Berman’s reading not __________ absolves US foreign policy from being a major cause of incitement __________ rebellion and resistance among Islamic militants, but also suggests that this is indeed a clash of civilizations – Islam versus liberalism.

While advancing the notion that there can be alternative readings of Muslim ideologues, I am also arguing that discourse is what we make of it. Ideas have an impact on reality, but reality in turn affects the formation of ideas and how ideas are apprehended. Some Muslims read Qutb and are motivated to use violence against their regimes and the West, whom they perceive as tyrannical. Others read him as an advocate of freedom, social justice and responsible governance.

The different readings of Syed Qutb underscore the diversity within Islam and among Muslims. Profiles of Islam and Muslims cannot be painted with broad brushes. Quick, single-variable explanations as to why Muslims are angry at the US will not suffice. Muslim realities, like Muslim thinking, are complex, diverse and challenging. As policy makers in Washington rethink the Muslim World, they would do well to remember that ethnocentric interpretations and sweeping judgments will only heighten misunderstanding and lead to bad policy. Bad things ensue from bad policy.

A liberal reading of Qutb reveals him as a philosopher of freedom and justice, not a philosopher of terror. Similarly, a sympathetic view of the Muslim World will reveal a thirst for freedom and justice, not a penchant for violence or hate. American policy makers do recognize the significance and potential of liberal Islam and the strategic value of supporting moderate Muslims. However, they have so far shown interest only in using moderates to lend legitimacy to certain US policies in the Muslim World. They have not taken on board moderate Muslim input in shaping post-September 11 policies nor have they sought their assistance in moderating the government’s rhetoric and messages to the Muslim World. But then the current US administration has proven to be secretive, closed, and insular, excluding even moderate conservatives from policy making. It would be pie in the sky to expect this administration to include diverse opinion. The potential of moderate Muslims thus remains untapped.