Telling Friend From Foe: Ferreting out Militant Islam

If militant Islam is the problem and moderate Islam is the solution, as I often argue, how does one differentiate between these two forms of Islam? It's a tough question, especially as concerns Muslims who live in Western countries. To understand just how tough it is, consider the case of Abdurahman Alamoudi, a prominent American figure associated with 16 Muslim organizations.

FBI spokesman William Carter described one of those, the American Muslim Council, as "the most mainstream Muslim group in the United States." The Department of Defense entrusted two of them, the Islamic Society of North America and the American Muslim Armed Forces and Veterans Council, to vet Islamic chaplains for the armed forces. The State Department thought so highly of Mr. Alamoudi, it hired him six times and sent him on all-expenses-paid trips to majority-Muslim countries to carry what it called "a message of religious tolerance."

Mr. Alamoudi's admirers have publicly hailed him as a "moderate," a "liberal Muslim," and someone known "for his charitable support of battered women and a free health clinic."

However, this image of moderation collapsed recently when an Alamoudi-endorsed chaplain was arrested and charged with mishandling classified material; when Mr. Alamoudi himself was arrested on charges of illegal commerce with Libya, and when Mr. Alamoudi's Palm Pilot was found to contain contact information on seven men designated by our government as global terrorists.

Distinguishing between real and phony moderation, obviously, is not a job for amateurs such as American government officials. The best way to discern moderation is by delving into the record -- public and private, Internet and print, domestic and foreign -- of an individual or institution. Such research is most productive with intellectuals, activists, and imams, all of whom have a paper trail. With others who lack a public record, it is necessary to ask questions. These need to be specific, because vague inquiries — such as "Is Islam a religion of peace?" and "Do you condemn terrorism?" — have little value, for they depend on definitions (of peace, of terrorism, etc.).

Useful questions might address subjects such as:

• Violence: Do you condone or condemn the Palestinians, Chechens, and Kashmiris who give up their lives to kill enemy civilians? Will you condemn by name as terrorist groups such organizations as Abu Sayyaf, Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, Groupe Islamique Arm e, Hamas, Harakat ul-Mujahidin, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Jaish-e-Mohammed, Lashkar-e-Tayyiba, and Al Qaeda?
• Modernity: Should Muslim women have equal rights with men (for example, in inheritance shares or court testimony)? Is jihad, meaning a form of warfare, acceptable in today's world? Do you accept the validity of other religions? Do Muslims have anything to learn from the West?
• Secularism: Should non-Muslims enjoy completely equal civil rights with Muslims? May Muslims convert to other religions? May Muslim women marry non-Muslim men? Do you accept the laws of a majority non-Muslim government and unreservedly pledge allegiance to that government?
• State Imposition of Religious Observance: What do you think of banning food service during Ramadan? When Islamic customs conflict with secular laws (e.g., covering the face for drivers' license photographs), which should give way?
• Islamic Pluralism: Are Sufis and Shiites fully legitimate Muslims? Do you think that Muslims who disagree with you have fallen into unbelief? Is takfir (condemning fellow Muslims with whom one has disagreements as unbelievers) an acceptable practice?
• Self-criticism: Do you accept the legitimacy of scholarly inquiry into the origins of Islam? Who was responsible for the September 11 suicide hijackings?
• Defense Against Militant Islam: Do you accept enhanced security measures to fight militant Islam, even if this means extra scrutiny of yourself (for example, at airline security checkpoints)? Do you agree that institutions accused of funding terrorism should be shut down, or do you see this a symptom of bias?
• Goals in the West: Do you accept that Western countries are majority-Christian and secular or do you seek to transform them into majority-Muslim countries ruled by Islamic law?

It would be ideal if these questions were posed publicly — in the press or in front of an audience — thereby reducing the scope for dissimulation.

No single reply establishes a militant Islamic disposition (plenty of non-Muslim Europeans believe the Bush administration itself carried out the September 11 terrorist attacks); and pretence is always a possibility, but these questions offer a good start to the vexing issue of separating enemies from friends.

Daniel Pipes is director of the Middle East Forum and a columnist for both the New York Post and The Jerusalem Post. His website, DanielPipes.org, offers an archive of his published writings and a si