On the inside

In an exclusive interview with Al-Ahram Weekly, former chairwoman of the US-based Muslim Women's League and International Religious Freedom Commission member talks about the fact-finding mission, the controversy and the role she has played
Were you surprised at the negative reaction the commission received?
Oh yes. I don't think we appreciated the magnitude of how it would affect this visit. Not just the media, which is okay, but the result that people then boycotted meetings. That was unfortunate, because the more people we talked to, the more we could have learned. I don't think we understood the effect that the timing [of the visit] would have, or realised that the link between our trip and Mubarak's visit [to the US] was so big. This was an important learning experience, and for future reference the commission should take into consideration the sentiments of the people when planning trips.
As a commission you didn't take that into account?
We couldn't. We didn't know he was going. The purpose of the trip was not designed to impact that in any way. Whether he was coming to the US or not, we would still have come.
Did you receive any sort of welcome at all?
Well, we had a large list of people we wanted to meet with, and many of them chose not to meet with us. We had a meeting with the Sheikh of Al-Azhar, people on that level, and other private individuals, who may not want their identity known. But I'm sure it could have been a lot more.
The commission is being accused of meddling in internal affairs.
Technically speaking, of course we can't meddle in a government's affairs. We can only advise the US government, which is under no obligation to do anything that we recommend. I think the commission is looked at more as a human rights group than a government body saying you have to do this, or we're going to take money away from you if you don't.
There's also the issue of the commission having an agenda, or being part of a larger US agenda.
Because we're volunteers appointed from different places, and come from different political parties and backgrounds, it's very hard for us to be one unit with some formal agenda. Whether certain individuals themselves have something in mind, I don't know.
What about the question marks regarding commission head Elliot Abrams, someone who sounds like a Likudist in his writings?
Because we're going to Israel, I want to reserve comment until afterwards. I don't want to compromise the situation.
Is the right wing-Zionist alliance becoming stronger in the US?
I can understand why people would think that, considering the rhetoric. I think that the role of the Christian right in this issue is profoundly important because that's what lobbied and pushed through the IRFA [the International Religious Freedom Act]. But a relationship with Zionists and so forth, how much and to what extent that exists, I don't know, and I don't know that it's totally pervasive to the whole movement.
How do you respond to accusations that a visit like this does more harm than good for the people it's supposed to help?
I think that's something to keep in mind. [...] It's an extremely important point that I know I'm sensitive to -- and I think the rest of the commission is too: how much this can damage things for the people that we care about. And in Egypt, it's not just Copts. We look at the gamut of issues relating to religious freedom. For both Christian and Muslim issues, going to the country is so important because you get a whole different viewpoint than you do just receiving [information] in Washington.
Where do you get the information for your reports?
It's all sorts. One of the sources that give a lot of background information is the State Department human rights report. We also receive information from non-governmental organisations and human rights groups that come directly to us, and we also have our own staff researching all sorts and sources of information. Some sources are better than others -- Human Rights Watch, Amnesty, governmental sources, and religious NGOs that are in a given country or in the US. The media is also a big source of information.
How do you validate your sources?
We look to see if a number of sources give the same information, and we also have contacts with the State Department development desks, which may have access to information. We hold hearings where we invite people from other countries to come and testify. You make the best of what you have. The issue of a multiplicity of sources saying the same thing is important, as opposed to hearing one thing from one source. The nature of the group giving the information is also important -- what their background and general reputation is. It's the same thing with the media -- some media sources are more reputable than others.
Experts say that the commission is meant to be a guarantor of Christian missionary work around the world.
It may be that for some groups that particular issue was the motivation for this legislation, and the issue of proselytism is extremely important. Evangelical Christian groups are the major lobbying groups behind the effort. It's hard to document or even prove that what people want is unfettered access to do missionary work around the world. Again, it becomes a theory, and speculation [follows]. But it's a very important issue because even if Americans have a certain opinion about [missionary work], others may not necessarily agree. Even if it seems like simple freedom of speech, other places may see it as a loaded issue, because of the past [association] of missionaries with colonialism. Understanding these differences of perspective is important, and that's another thing we could bring to the dialogue.
How often is the commission in agreement?
Probably the majority of the time. I've issued a few public dissents on some things that are on the record. I try to be selective about how often to do that. Being the only Muslim on the commission, and as an American Muslim, one of the big issues of religious freedom in general is distinguishing between what Islam says and what Muslims do. Islam comes up a lot, so that's a major area of clarification, and the commission by and large has really been receptive to learning more and adapting their own information.
So no lone voice syndrome?
I don't feel like I'm besieged, or somehow silenced, or anything like that. There are times when I am a minority of one, and it definitely depends on the issue.
Most people's impression may be that you are providing a balance to a prevailing point of view.
That's a really important issue for Muslims to be aware of -- that we need to do better about getting our point of view out there. It shouldn't just be one person being a voice, it should be many, many voices.
But do you ever feel like you're just the token Muslim?
I've debated that many, many times, but because we generally don't have access, it's better for us to be inside watching how the process works, rather than outside always complaining about it. I'm of the opinion, even though I have scars, that it's better to participate as much as we can. Because of my involvement, I have seen a lot of things happen that I don't think would have happened otherwise, in terms of bringing up issues and putting them on the table. No one's going to do it for us, and I don't think they're obliged to.
Interviewed by Tarek Atia
Recommend this page
Related stories:
The cold shoulder
Christian concerns
US commission faces closed doors 22 - 28 March 2001
Al-Kosheh rioters released 14 - 20 December 2000
Meeting Mr Seipel 25 February - 3 March 1999
Emerging from the shadows 19 - 25 November 1998
A bill that might backfire 15 - 21 October 1998
© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved
Send a letter to the Editor