Jihad not black or white

Editorial

A torrential storm came and went at Harvard University last week, and we are all the worse for it – Jew, Muslim, American, citizen of any country.

The divisive issue was one of three commencement speeches to be delivered to Harvard's graduating class, which Muslim-American student Zayed M. Yasin was scheduled to orate. The title for his discourse: "American Jihad."

The title of Yasin's speech immediately raised the ire of many Harvard students, with Jewish groups being particularly vocal in their demands that the word "Jihad," which Muslim extremists interpret as "holy war" and use to justify terrorism, be dropped from the title and that Yasin publicly reveal the contents of his speech. The text was shown to high-ranking Harvard authorities, who gave it the green light, attesting that Yasin's words were neither offensive, controversial nor even political.

Still, the wave of protest persisted unabated: more than 1,500 people signed a petition against the title, alumni threatened to withhold donations and Yasin received abusive e-mails and a death threat. Through it all, Yasin insisted that his intentions were peaceful and unifying. Moreover, his stated goal was to reclaim the word jihad to reveal its true meaning – an individual moral struggle – and to show how Islamic and American ideals are not antithetical as many would have us believe, but rather complimentary.

The pressure continued and, after two days of negotiations with Harvard Jewish leaders and university authorities, Yasin reluctantly agreed to change the title of his speech to "Of Faith and Citizenship."

To be fair, the conflict over Harvard's choice of Yasin began long before the title of his speech was revealed. Yasin is a former president of the Harvard Islamic Society who has long been a thorn in the side of Harvard Hillel for, among other things, his alleged support of the Holy Land Foundation, an organization listed by the U.S. Treasury Department as a fund-raiser for Hamas. Hilary Levey, who organized the drive to have Yasin removed as a speaker, doubts Yasin's vision of jihad is entirely peaceful. Levey argues that Yasin, through past actions and statements, is a tacit supporter of Palestinian terrorism. Yasin vehemently refutes those charges, claiming his organization immediately diverted funds away from Holy Land once their Hamas connections were revealed.

In the end, Yasin's commencement speech went ahead as planned, barely raising an eyebrow. The text, it turns out, was innocuous and positive, just as Harvard had guaranteed. Thus, while Hillel's initial concerns with Yasin as a speaker were well intentioned, their objections to the title and contents of his speech were exceptionally shortsighted and counterproductive.

As Islam continues to be hijacked by fundamentalists who use the Koran to justify their violent actions, Muslim voices, such as Yasin's, that seek to reinterpret Islam as a peaceful religion are precisely those we need to be promoting, instead of censoring. The airwaves, bookshelves, newspapers and Internet are now filled with experts on the Islamic world. But no western expert, no matter how knowledgeable, will have an inkling of success in abating Muslims fundamentalism, for terrorism and Islamic extremism are rooted in their leaders' antagonistic interpretation of the Koran, and thus can only be defeated by unabashedly moderate Muslims, unafraid to challenge such a violent reading of Islam.

As Jews, it is important that we are not blinded by the virulent war of words that now takes place daily in the media over issues related to Israel, terrorism and anti-Semitism. To defend against misinformation and propaganda is noble and just, but to allow this defence to develop into censorship, or to paint the world as black and white is detrimental to the search for peace. Sadly, this media war has caused both sides to view the issues crudely as black and white. So Ariel Sharon, once disliked by most pro-Israelis, can now do no wrong. And suicide bombers, previously abhorred by moderate Arabs, are now portrayed as martyrs, a result of Israeli occupation.

Neither truth nor the path to compromise lies in such simplistic views, but in the grey matter that is so much more difficult to discern. Choosing pragmatism over dogma, promoting candid dialogue, and hunting for and disseminating that illusive grey matter are crucial if all sides have any hope of reaching an understanding and putting an end to the cycle of threats and violence.

^TOP