The American Muslim (TAM)

Stephen Schwartz and the Center on Islamic Pluralism

Sheila Musaji

Posted Apr 10, 2011 •Permalink • Printer-Friendly Version

Stephen Schwartz and the Center on Islamic Pluralism

by Sheila Musaji

Stephen Schwartz is the Director of the Center on Islamic Pluralism (CIP), and was a Senior Fellow of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

In 2003 it was reported that Daniel Pipes’ Middle East Forum was seeking support to form a progressive Islamic institute that would represent liberal Muslims living in the United States. Pipes sent out a request to various foundations across the United States to raise funds for a proposed

Islamic Progress Institute

At that time, I wrote an article Daniel Pipes the New Voice of Moderate Islam? in which I said in part

And, now, the neo-cons have a new strategy in their War on Islam which is to subvert ignorant and naive Muslims. This strategy was first announced by Paul Wolfowitz a year ago. Then Front Page began what they said would be a series of articles with “A Troubling Influence” by Frank Gaffney, followed by “Ford Has A Better Idea: One Nation Under Allah” by Alyssa Lappen which attacked specific individuals who represent a wide spectrum of ideologies. Daniel Pipes also published an article “Do You Believe in Modernity?” in which he includes a series of questions to use to test whether a Muslim is a moderate or not.

A UPI article recently announced that Daniel Pipes and Stephen Schwartz are seeking major funding for their two organizations to speak on behalf of “REFORMED MUSLIMS”. “Pipes Forming Islamic Institute” . There we have it, the neo-con agenda discovered and described in Jim Lobe’s excellent article, “Neocons Seek Islamic Reform”.

In April of 2005, I added an update to this article which stated that

On March 25, 2005
Daniel Pipes announced on his website the opening of the Center on Islamic Pluralism, directed by Stephen Schwartz — the name has changed from the original Islamic Progress Institute but the cast of characters remains the same
. The Center for Islamic Pluralism also opened a website and issued a press release calling itself a “platform for moderate Muslims in North America.” Schwartz also wrote an article entitled “The Battle for Islam is Joined” published, of course on Front Page.

Also in 2003, Schwartz testified at a U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security hearing on the topic of “Wahhabism and Islam in the United States”. In this testimony he stated the unfounded claim that At the present time, Shia and other non-Wahhabi Muslim community leaders estimate that 80 percent of American mosques – out of a total ranging between an official estimate of 1,200 and an unofficial figure of 4-6,000 – are under Wahhabi control.

Schwartz himself identified the source of this claim The same influences are brought to bear throughout the ten-million-strong Muslim community in America, as well as those in Europe. In the US, 80 percent of mosques are estimated by the Sufi Hisham al-Kabbani, born in Lebanon and now living in the US, to be under the control of Wahhabi imams, who preach extremism.”

Schwartz has involved himself in just about every Islamophobic cause over the years. He says he is a Muslim, and we have to take him at his word. He wrote an article Coming to Islam which is published on a Naqshbandi site. In that article he says “Then I met Shaykh Hisham of the Naqshbandi order, and, within weeks, had made shehadeh, hamdilullah.’ He is referring to Shaykh Hisham Kabbani. He has identified himself as a Sunni-Hanafi Muslim, and as a Sufi. He also uses the name Sulayman Ahmed. However, like Zuhdi Jasser and a few others, some of his opinions and associations are very puzzling. He has attacked just about every mainstream Muslim leader and organization. Anti-Wahhabism and anti-Salafism are the focus of much of his work. The problem is that anyone who doesn’t agree with him completely gets branded with these designations.

In 2006 Schwartz posted an article attacking Hamza Yusuf. Sidi Aftab Ahmad Malik wrote an excellent response which included this paragraph

My immediate response is to question why Schwartz has searched out this reference (of questionable accuracy) to denounce Hamza Yusuf. Why does he go to such pains to try to convince his readership that Yusuf is an extremist who does not speak for the majority of Muslims? The implication of course, is that Schwartz is a moderate Muslim (struggling for plurality) and in fact speaks for the majority of mainstream Muslims. In fact, Schwartz has a long record of denouncing other Muslims as either being Islamists, Jihadists, or Wahhabis—all words that the public has been taught to “understand” represent three incarnations of everything evil in the world today. While the reality remains that many Americans still cannot make sense of Islam, Schwartz’s simplistic articles only offer a dangerous black and white view of a complex landscape. I find it astonishing that Schwartz, the executive director of the Center for Islamic Pluralism cannot even recognize the plurality within the Muslim community itself, and rather than acknowledge this, he demarcates disperse communities into moderates versus extremists.

In 2009, he posted another diatribe against Hamza Yusuf and the announcement of the opening of the Zaytuna College. Within that article is this statement

Promotion of “Shaykh Hamza” Shakir, and the Zaytuna Institute by Esposito, Kalin, and “The Muslim 500” does not appear coincidental. All of them, along with Rizwan Khan, have been leading participants in the so-called “Common Word” series of “dialogues” between Muslims and Catholic authorities.“Shaykh Hamza” distinguished himself as a major proponent of the “Common Word” effort, from its beginning in 2006, with a letter of 38 mainly second-rank Muslim figures addressed to Pope Benedict XVI. Like “Shaykh Hamza” and the Zaytuna campaign, the “Common Word” has been extravagantly promoted as a major event in the history of Muslim-Christian relations, having produced ever-expanding meetings at Yale and Cambridge universities, as well as discussions in Rome.

The latest such performance, also supported by the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, was held at Georgetown on October 6-9, 2009. In reality, the “Common Word” encounters are public events of an all-too-familiar kind, at which many speeches are made but nothing new or important is said or done. Nevertheless, they obscure the differences between Muslim moderates and Muslim radicals by suggesting that a single, undifferentiated Muslim delegation may treat with the Catholic Church on a basis of equality.

Schwartz approved of Tariq Ramadan being banned from the U.S. saying “Ramadan should not be admitted to the U.S. He has written extensively on the challenge of assimilating Islam in Europe, but has shown by his public statements there that he is not an Islamic moderate at all…” And, he thought that Cat Stevens (Yusuf Islam) being placed on the no fly list was “correct”.

Schwartz attacked not only ISNA, but Ingrid Mattson. Sarah Posner has reported that

In the shari’ah scare industry, organizations like ISNA are depicted as having secret agendas and the ability to dupe their unwitting supporters. As an example, Stephen Schwartz, in a piece republished at Pipes’ Middle East Forum, maintained that ISNA’s recent past president Ingrid Mattson, has had a “career as a promoter of radical Islam.” Schwartz’s proof that Mattson is not a moderate Muslim: an interview with the Tulsa World, in which Schwartz claims “Mattson defined Shari’ah according to the sweeping definition put forward by Islamists: ‘Shari’ah means the sacred law, a whole set of approaches to living your life in a way that brings you closer to God.’”

When Brandon Mayfield, an American Muslim was mistakenly arrested in the Madrid bombing case, Schwartz had a comment before the facts wee in. Shahed amanullah reported

One week ago, Brandon Mayfield was arrested upon suspicion of participating in the Madrid train bombings of March 11th - his “perfectly formed” fingerprint was alleged to have been found on an unexploded bomb - even though he had never visited Spain and had an expired passport. Friends and family rallied around the man they called “too gentle” to commit terrorism, but the usual warnings about the dangers that lurk among American Muslims were issued. “
If he is found to have had a link with the Madrid conspiracy,” noted commentator Stephen Schwartz, “nobody anywhere should be surprised
.” Last night, however, Mayfield was unexpectedly freed with no comment just as Madrid investigators linked the fingerprint to a Algerian-born suspect closer to home. And like Chaplain James Yee before him, Mayfield’s release comes with little of the media hype that surrounded his arrest, leaving many Americans with the lingering suspicions their initial detentions caused.

Salim Muwakkil reported that Stephen Schwartz, the neocon author of Two Faces of Islam, insists that he is the first Westerner to use the term Islamofascism in the contemporary context. This is a very strange thing to be proud of.

Schwartz was opposed to the proposed Cordoba House project in New York City.

In 2008, I wrote an article Rabbi Pelavin’s Response to “Attention Rabbi Yoffie: Please Speak To Moderate Muslims” about an incident involving The Center on Islamic Pluralism which included this explanation of the incident

In September, Rabbi Eric Yoffie, President of the Union for Reformed Judaism addressed the ISNA annual convention. This was followed by Ingrid Mattson, President of ISNA addressing the convention of the Union of Reformed Judaism (Rabbi Yoffie’s organization). Both events were received with overwhelmingly positive responses from both the Muslim and Jewish communities. In fact, both were received with standing ovations. This is a very positive step for Muslim-Jewish dialogue in the U.S.

What is surprising is that recently a group of self-defined Muslim “moderates” published a letter in the popular Jewish Week News, attacking Rabbi Yoffie for choosing ISNA and not them for this partnership. Their letter was entitled “Attention Rabbi Yoffie: Please Speak To Moderate Muslims”.

The letter to Rabbi Yoffie was signed by the following self-identified “moderate Muslims”: Nawab Agha, president, American Muslim Congress; Omran Salman, director, Aafaq Foundation; Kemal Silay, president, Center for Islamic Pluralism; Stephen Suleyman Schwartz, executive director, Center for Islamic Pluralism; Salim Mansur, Canadian director, Center for Islamic Pluralism; Jalal Zuberi, Southern U.S. director, Center for Islamic Pluralism; Imaad Malik, fellow, Center for Islamic Pluralism;
M. Zuhdi Jasser, president, American Islamic Forum for Democracy; Sheikh Ahmed Subhy Mansour, president, International Quranic Center.

Zuhdi Jasser, as noted by Sourcewatch is a Co-founder of the Center for Islamic Pluralism, a Director of the American Islamic Congress, and on the Advisory Board of the Clarion Fund. This is important because Jasser and Schwartz are both working to establish themselves as THE moderate Muslims who should replace the existing American Muslim leadership. You can read about Jasser HERE.

Rabbi Pelavin, the Director of the Commission on Interreligous Affairs of Reform Judaism (Rabbi Yoffie’s organization) crafted the following clear and concise response to this attempt to sideline a mainstream Muslim organization.

The recent letter (“Attention Rabbi Yoffie: Please Speak To Moderate Muslims,” 1/2/08) attacking the Union for Reform Judaism’s outreach to, and work with, moderate, mainstream elements of the American Muslim community requires a response.

Much of the attack centers on the fact that we are working with the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), which reaches the largest, broadest cross-section of the American Muslim community. ISNA is the largest, broadest, most representative group in American Muslim life. The ISNA convention attracts more than 30,000 participants and is– by any measure – far and away the largest, most significant, event in Muslim American life. If we are serious about engagement with the Muslim community, and we are, than it makes sense to go where the American Muslims are. In contrast, the organizations whose leaders signed the letter represent a very small segment of the American Muslim community.

Second, ISNA has made a significant effort to engage in this type of work. They have opened an office in Washington, D.C. – headed by a very senior member of their staff – to focus on interrelgious work. ISNA has clearly made engagement with the broader American religious community in general, and the Jewish community in particular, a priority.
Third, and not insignificantly, they took the initiative to invite Rabbi Yoffie to address their convention. None of the signatory organizations have ever extended a similar invitation.

Of course none of that would matter if we believed that ISNA were, in the words of the letter “apologists for violence, or proponents of restrictions on freedom under the pretext of religion.” We don’t. As Rabbi Yoffie said in his sermon at our recent Biennial Convention, ISNA “has issued a strong and unequivocal condemnation of terror, including a specific condemnation of Hizbollah and Hamas terror against Jews and Israelis. It has also recognized Israel as a Jewish state and supported a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. These statements provide the framework of common values that we believe are necessary for a fruitful dialogue to occur.” We took note, for example, of the fact that when Rabbi Yoffie spoke at the ISNA convention, he shared the platform with a senior Pentagon official. Further, we have had the opportunity to hear from, and meet with, ISNA President Dr. Ingrid Matson a number of times, in a number of forums, and we have never, never, heard her say anything, or write anything, which could be fairly called “extremist.” In fact, the “radial rhetoric” of hers which the letter cites ( “we see candidates [in the current Presidential election] being asked to prove that they comply with an ever narrower definition of what it means to be a Christian — forget about being a Muslim or a Jew” ) is not only not radical, it strikes me as empirically true.

Finally it was never our intention to work exclusively with ISNA or any other one organization. I am pleased to learn that the organizations that joined in the criticism of our effort are interested in dialogue. Perhaps it might have been more effective for them to signal that interest in some way other than their unhelpful letter in these pages.

Louay Safi saw through this religion building effort. In a 2005 article Hardliners in Search of Moderate Muslims he noted:

The cynicism of the extreme Religious Right aside, the need to distinguish moderate from extremist Muslims is genuine. The terrorist attacks on the American homeland have demonstrated the ruthlessness of the terrorists and their willingness to inflict harms on noncombatant civilians, and the terrorists who undertook these attacks were apparently religiously motivated Muslims. Americans of all religious and ideological backgrounds have a genuine interest in ensuring that religious fanatics do not threaten the safety and security of the public.

9/11 was particularly hard on the American Muslim community. In addition to suffering a high number of casualties, 9/11 attacks brought additional pain to the Muslim community, as Muslims had to deal with suspicious public and added scrutiny by law enforcement agencies. The Muslim community has had more than its fair share of the pain inflicted on Americans as 358 Muslims perished in the attacks on the twin towers and the Pentagon. American Muslim organizations were the first to issue condemnations of the attacks and their perpetrators. Despite several dozen statements by Muslim organizations and leaders denouncing terrorism, the Religious Right pundits continue to complain that Muslim leaders have not denounced terrorism, and continue to demand more condemnations.

The search for moderate Muslims has become a priority of highest importance in post 9/11. American leaders recognized the need to distinguish between Muslim extremists who are willing to employ terror to achieve political ends, and moderate Muslims who abhor intolerance and indiscriminate targeting of civilians, and who share with their fellow Americans deep concern for the wellbeing of their country. George W. Bush’s emphasis on the peaceful nature of Islam during a visit to the Washington Islamic Center, shortly after the 9/11 attacks, and his clear distinction between the peace-loving and law-abiding American Muslims on the one hand, and political extremism and religious fanaticism on the other, was important for reassuring the public and calming public fear immediately after the attacks.

The search for moderate Muslims has attracted a number of ultra-conservative groups, who have, for decades, displayed apprehension and anxiety about the growing presence of Islam in America. Taking advantage of the climate of vulnerability and fear brought about by the horrific attacks of 9/11, and the lack of knowledge on the part of the American public of Islam’s values and civilizational contributions, hardliners embarked on an anti-Islam campaign to discredit and isolate mainstream American Muslim organizations.

Hardliners are engaged in cynical efforts to undermine the work of mainstream organizations who have been working for decades to develop Muslim institutions to nurture the needs of the growing American Muslim community, help the community integrate into the larger American society, and protect the civil rights and liberties of Muslims. Hardliners are busy in inventing Muslim organizations whose main missions are to roll back American Muslim achievements.

Daniel Pipes, whose whole carrier is built on bashing Muslims and confusing the public through half truths and innuendos, is yet to find moderate Muslim organizations or leaders. He has accused every Muslim organization and leader of repute of extremism, militancy, and radicalism. His list of militant organizations includes: The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), Muslim American Society (MAS), and others. Muslim organizations have for years been the subject of his attacks and accusations. He, most recently, added the newly founded Progressive Muslim Union of North America (PMUNA) and the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy (CSID) to the list.

Pipes collaborates with a group of off-centrists that includes David Horowitz, Kenneth Timmerman, Steve Emerson, and Steven Schwartz in attacking Islam and Muslims
. The group employs smear tactics of “quotes taken out of context, guilt by association, errors of fact, and innuendo,” and utilizes neo-conservative publications such as the Daily and Weekly Standards, National Review, Insight, and Front Page Magazine, to coordinate their attacks.

Pipes’s mean-spirited and bigoted attacks against Muslim organizations came to the fore few months ago when he embarked on a smear campaign against the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy (CSID). Using his leverage as a member of the board of the United States Institute of Peace (USIP), he pressed hard to cancel a seminar the Institute organized jointly with CSID. Pipes accused CSID of being “part of the militant Islamist lobby,” and contended that it was “well-disguised, and has brought in all the Islamist trends, giving them a patent of respectability.”

After conducting a thorough investigation of Pipes’s claims, USIP issued a statement that brought out the irresponsible nature of Pipes’s attacks. “The Institute was aware of and took seriously the accusations made against CSID and some of the speakers at the event,” Kay King, the director of Congressional and Public Affairs at USIP. “These allegations were investigated carefully with credible private individuals and U.S. government agencies,” she went on, “and found to be without merit. The public criticism of CSID and the speakers was found to be based on quotes taken out of context, guilt by association, errors of fact, and innuendo.” Pipes was defiant in the face of USIP’s rebuke, contending that “President [George W.] Bush appointed [him] to the USIP board in part to serve as a watchdog against militant Islamic groups.” He was ultimately pushed out from the USIP’s board as his recess nomination was not renewed.”

Failing to isolate Muslim organizations and to scare them off, the Anti-Islam campaign is now testing the old strategy of divide and conquer with the Muslim community. Pipes has procured seed funds for a new organization whose main mission is to recruit “moderate Muslims” to undermine leading Muslim organizations. The Center for Islamic Pluralism (CIP), led by Steven Schwartz, who serves as its executive director, was created to serve as “a think tank that challenges the dominance of American Muslim life by militant Islamist groups,” the Center’s mission statement reads.

CIP executive director does show profound appreciation of Pipes’s moral and financial support, and is fully committed to his agenda and completely behold to his jargon. Jim Lobe states, in a report that came out couple of month ago, that Pipes was “working with Stephen Schwartz on a new Center for Islamic Pluralism (CIP) whose aims are to ‘promote moderate Islam in the U.S. and globally’ and ‘to oppose the influence of militant Islam, and, in particular, the Saudi-funded Wahhabi sect of Islam, among American Muslims, in the America media, in American education … and with U.S. governmental bodies.’”

“The ‘extremists,’ according to the CIP proposal, are mainly represented by the ‘Wahhabi lobby,’ an array of organizations consisting of CAIR, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT), the Muslim Students’ Association of the U.S. and Canada (MSA), the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), as well as ‘secular’ groups, including the Arab-American Institute (AAI) and the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC).”

Having failed to find moderate Muslims, Pipes and company is now ready to invent them
. The great irony, though, is that those who are busy producing moderate Muslims have long time ago moved from the center to the ideological fringes of the American society. The fact that they are still able to procure funds to finance their hate mongering business speaks volumes to the deep seated prejudices against Islam and Muslims that lurk among Religious Right groups who finance and support both their public and furtive operations.

The pundits leading the anti-Islam campaign will continue their business as usual, and are unlikely to be deterred by a limited exposure of their deception and distortion. The exposure must be complete. The American Muslim Community cannot, however, continue doing business as usual. It must take responsibility for the fact that Muslim bashers are exploiting its inability to mount a strong response to stop those who are digging under its feet. More specifically, American Muslims must intensify their efforts and take more seriously their work in the following areas:

1. Building national institutions and supporting organizations engaged in building leadership capacity within the Muslim community, and defending the rights and dignity of American Muslims.
2. Joining hands with local and national organizations that provide public services, and channeling its human and financial resources to serve the larger American public.
3. Coordinating their activities so as to avoid duplication and bickering, and to act in unison in face of those who espouse ill-will and ill-intentions toward Islam and American Muslims.

Jim Lobe reported in 2005 that

Pipes is also working with Stephen Schwartz on a new Center for Islamic Pluralism (CIP) whose aims are to “promote moderate Islam in the U.S. and globally” and “to oppose the influence of militant Islam, and, in particular, the Saudi-funded Wahhabi sect of Islam, among American Muslims, in the America media, in American education … and with U.S. governmental bodies.”

Schwartz, a former Trotskyite militant who became a Sufi Muslim in 1997, has
received seed money from MEF (Middle East Forum), which is also accepting contributions on CIP’s behalf until the government gives it tax-exempt legal status
, according to another grant proposal obtained by IPS.

The CIP proposal, which says it expects to receive funding from contributors in the “American Shia community” and in “Sunni mosques once liberated from Wahhabi influence,” also boasts “strong links” with Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and other notable neoconservatives, such as former Central Intelligence (CIA) director James Woolsey and the vice president for foreign policy programming at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), Danielle Pletka, as well as with Pipes himself.

Pipes, who created MEF in Philadelphia in 1994, has long campaigned against “radical” Islamists in the United States, especially the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and several other national Islamic groups.

... Pipes’ complementary goal – to enhance the influence of “moderate” Muslims – is to guide the work of Schwartz’s CIP, which is “headed by one born Muslim (its President) and a ‘new Muslim’, i.e. an American not born in the faith, as its Executive Director. This is the best combination for leading such an effort.”

The “extremists,” according to the CIP proposal, are mainly represented by the “Wahhabi lobby,” an array of organizations consisting of CAIR, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT), the Muslim Students’ Association of the U.S. and Canada (MSA), the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), as well as “secular” groups, including the Arab-American Institute (AAI) and the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC).

“
The first goal of CIP will be the removal of CAIR and ISNA from monopoly status in representing Muslims to the American public,” the proposal goes on. “[S]o long as they retain a major foothold at the highest political level, no progress can be made for moderate American Islam.
“

In achieving its goal, CIP cites the help it can expect from its “strong links” to Wolfowitz, Woolsey, and Pletka; as well as Senators Charles Schumer and Sen. Jon Kyl, among others, “terrorism experts” Steven Emerson of the Investigative Project, Paul Marshall of Freedom House, and Glen Howard of the Jamestown Foundation; and journalists such as Fox News anchors David Asman, Brit Hume, and Greta van Susteren, Dale Hurd of the Christian Broadcasting Network; and editors at the New York Post, the Los Angeles Times, and the Toronto Globe and Mail.