University Chaplain Father David O'Leary announced to the Daily yesterday his endorsement of the "Manifesto of Twelve," a document offering a strongly worded denunciation of 'Islamist' violence in the Arab world signed by many prominent figures advocating serious reform in the Islamic world.
The Manifesto first appeared Feb. 28 in the Jyllands-Posten, the same Danish newspaper that published the cartoons that triggered widespread controversy and violence across the world and resulted in the deaths of at least 139 people as of Mar. 2.
The Manifesto offers an uncompromising condemnation of Islamist violence, dubbing Islamism "a new global totalitarian threat," and calls for "the promotion of freedom, equal opportunity, and secular values worldwide."
Merriam-Webster's online dictionary defines Islamism as "the faith, doctrine, or cause of Islam." The American Heritage College Dictionary also defines Islamism as "the religious faith, principles, or cause of Islam," but it offers another definition of Islamism as "an Islamic revivalist movement, often characterized by moral conservatism, literalism, and the attempt to implement Islamic values in all spheres of life."
The statement was signed by 12 prominent figures, including author Salman Rushdie, who spoke at Tufts last semester, and Irshad Manji, author of "The Trouble with Islam Today: A Muslim's Call for Reform in Her Faith."
According to her Web site, www.muslim-refusenik.com, Manji and the other signatories received a serious death threat from ummah.com, a British Islamist Web site with a large following.
Manji said on the Web site that the threat differs from the "daily" death threats she receives for her controversial views.
"Excellent - makes killing the kuffar [infidel] all the bit easier... Now we have a hit list of a 'Who's Who' guide to slam into," the threat read.
In the wake of the threat, Manji began circulating a petition to gather support for the document.
Manji spoke at Tufts several years ago, and O'Leary remained in contact with her. "Irshad Manji is a very good friend of mine and I immediately signed it," O'Leary said of the petition.
O'Leary submitted an unequivocal endorsement of the document in a signed letter to the Daily. "I wish to express my unequivocal support for the twelve signatories and my outrage at the Islamist attack against them," his statement read, mirroring a petition distributed by the site.
"I stand firm with the 12 against this reactionary movement. I join in their call to resist religious totalitarianism and to promote freedom, equal opportunity, human rights, and secular values for all."
"No one country should be dictating what believers think they do. There was a great deal of room for dissent under the prophet [Mohammad]," O'Leary said.
Every person, he said, has the "right of their own reasoning. Most of the other world religions have hit this same crisis."
The strong wording of the document, however, presents a problem for the international media. The Editor's Weblog, a site that serves as a communication vehicle between international newspapers worldwide, highlighted the quandary that the document poses.
The tone of the manifesto is "undoubtedly anti-Islamist Extremist, and will certainly be interpreted by some in the global Muslim community as clear evidence that the West is prejudiced against them," the blog reads.
The overwhelming majority of American media elected not to print the cartoons, the blog said. It then posed the question, "If Muslims find this manifesto offensive, how will the British and American press report on it?"
The international media, however, has largely ignored the statement. Only scattered media outlets, including the Toronto Daily Star, have run the story.
O'Leary expressed no misgivings about his support for the document, and was not alarmed when asked if he realized that his unqualified support of the document could cause controversy.
"I welcome the debate; that's the whole point," he said. "Let's debate our difference of opinion without death threats."
A statement submitted to the Daily by Tufts' Arab Student Association (ASA) hailed some aspects of the document's ideology.
"Islamic groups that attempt to limit the freedom and rights of other religious or ethnic communities are detrimental to relations in the region, and do not serve to promote positive political and social development," the statement read. "In that sense, this Manifesto is correct, and the fact that it is attempting to represent Islam in a more liberal and progressive light is important."
However, the same group found the document's use of the term "Islamism" problematic.
"'Islamism' itself is a broad, awkward term that lumps together very different fundamentalist groups, and is a word most often used by people who do not recognize the diversity and separation between socio-political Muslim organizations, and the ideological divisions within those organizations," the statement read.
"There certainly are Muslims who ascribe to racist ideologies that are somehow linked to their religion, but we do not see any such overarching, united ideology that has come close to reaching the size of Nazism, Fascism or Stalinism," the statement continued."
The ASA asserted that it fully supports the ongoing development of civil and political freedoms and promotes dialogue between religions. "We recognize the need for a more effective voice within Islam directed to the rest of the world," the statement said.
Still, the ASA is "disappointed that scholars such as Manji and Rushdie would make such a link between fundamentalist Islam and some of the most deadly, hated, racist ideologies in recent history."
Junior Tom McDermott, who hails from Jordan, presented his perspective on the document as an Arab Christian.
Speaking from his personal experience, he said the document's failure to distinguish between Islam the religion and the violent acts inspired by radical forms of Islam would be confusing to many.
"It's a shallow statement by a lot of famous people in attempt to establish a more accessible voice of moderate Islam to the rest of the world," he said.
Names like Salman Rushdie are already known as "pretty hard-core liberals who want to see a lot of change in ... the Muslim world," he said, adding that the public, blasted with imagery of terrorist acts, is "looking for a different image of Islam."
Junior Vincent Galatro, who describes himself as a devout Catholic, said that "that insinuation from Father O'Leary surprises
me."
"From his statement, I sort of got that physical ousting of radical Islamists from government wouldn't be wrong," Galatro said. He also agreed with the ASA's statement that the Manifesto is too ambiguous.
"I think [the Group of 12] needs to pick its words more carefully," Galatro said.
"When something liberal and different shows up, people pay attention," McDermott said. This different voice, he continued, is important, but the authors "could have done a better job" of assembling a comprehensive statement.
