Thank you everyone for the great questions and the spirited exchange. Thank you, Zaid, for hosting — it was a pleasure to meet you virtually. And, as always, thanks Bev, for setting everything up. I look forward to continuing these conversations on-line and elsewhere…

all the best,
John

I agree. I personally am not religious. But I’ve worked with religious people my whole career. And I’ve come to recognize that religion is a very important source of meaning and strength for people. it is an integral part of culture, of how we make sense of the world and our place in it. I want to make sure that our society respects everyone’s choice in this regard, including the choice of people like me, to have no religion.

Yes, absolutely, Islamophobia is not just a flavor of the Right. These “jihadi liberals” have crossed over, with their Islamophobia, in much the same way that leftists became “Cold War liberals” half a century ago. With people like Peter Beinart, the former New Republic editor who supported the war in Iraq, we have seen a doubling back, a recognition of how their views were shaped in the crucible of error. But he still remains an exception among the “jihadi liberals.”

In a rational world, the work that you and ThinkProgress did on the sharia issue should have put the issue to rest. But it still lives on, alas.

I was struck by a commentary in the New York Times recently, by Charles Haynes (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/guest-voices/post/combating-islamophobia-at-long-last-a-sense-of-decency/2012/07/28/gJQABI4LGX_blog.html) in which he calls John McCain’s repudiation of Michelle Bachmann the “have you no shame” moment in the history of Islamophobia. I certainly hope so. But unfortunately, I don’t think that Bachmann, Geller, and their cadre have any shame….

I don’t, but it’s a very interesting question. I interviewed John Esposito, who is an expert on Islam but who was also in Catholic seminary as a young man. He watched in wonderment at the changes that took place within Catholicism as a result of Vatican II. This was, in some sense, a much delayed though incomplete internal enlightenment within the Church. He believes a similar process in taking place in the world of Islam today. there is a similar spirit of ferment, as different voices are being heard within Islam, as different interpretations are being tested, and, of course, as more conservative elements dig in their heels and resist.

In terms of the enlightenment more generally, it is important to remember that so many of the “intolerant” aspects of Islam that Islamophobes always quote — homophobia, sexism, and the like — were prominent features of Western societies until relatively recently. In other words, the Enlightenment was not a single moment of time. We are still all struggling through our own Enlightenments…

I didn’t. It was a very sad scandal, sad not because of Mortenson but because so many people wanted to do something different in Pakistan and its environs and just didn’t know what else they could do. He effectively manipulated liberal horror over the war (including the horror of liberals who initially supported the war)…

In terms of the other two suggestions in my conclusion, I recommend that we stop using the phrase “Judeo-Christian.” The term was originally put forward in the 19th century to diminish Jews through hyphenation. More recently, the phrase has come to represent Christian fundamentalist for Israel. Every time we use the phrase “Judeo-Christian” we deny the contributions of Muslim Americans to American society.

Yes, precisely. There is no situation in the United States in which sharia law has trumped U.S. law. The 300-plus page report from Frank Gaffney’s outfit on the “threat of sharia law” was able to come up with only one example, from New Jersey, in which a judge referred to sharia law in his verdict — mistakenly — and his decision was almost immediately overturned. The “threat of sharia law” is a non-threat, a manufactured threat, something even more ridiculous than the threats of communist infiltration during the Cold War.

you should definitely pick up Pinker’s book. he shows quite convincingly that, rather than an essential part of human nature, violence ebbs and flows according to social conditions. And the everyday violence that people once experienced — during the Middle Ages, for instance — has declined rather remarkably in recent years.

I do write about convivencia. I found David Levering Lewis’s book quite helpful in that regard. There are several models from the past that are worth examining, and certain periods of Muslim rule in Iberia (but not all) can serve as such a model when Muslims, Christians, and Jews lived in relative harmony. Other examples would include communities during the reign of Frederick II (who even created a Muslim city-state in Italy so that he could consult with Muslim scholars at his leisure).

coming back to your last question here Zaid: how does the narrative of Crusade 2.0 serve as a corrective to the current discourse about the West and islam?

In the last chapter, I make three suggestions. The first is the end of wars of intervention and occupation in the Muslim world. There can be no reset in the relationship between the West and Islam without ending these wars and occupations. Washington can talk endlessly about intentions and “smart power” and so on. But as long as the United States is destroying countries rather than helping to rebuild them, the Crusades of old will continue to haunt us. The same applies to Israel.

a great book idea, but probably not by me. I thought that Steven Pinker’s book on the history of violence, notwithstanding some flaws and grandstanding analysis, a great effort in that direction….

TED? I like the inclusion of TED in your list.

I don’t see a seismic shift philosophically, not in the short term. But if the United States has to cut a trillion dollars from the military over the next 10 years ($500 billion that Obama has proposed plus $500 in sequestration), then we might begin to see some changes. The United States will simply not be able to maintain its empire of bases, its “Pacific pivot,” its increasing penetration of Africa.

Sequestration might not happen, of course. But we have the best chance since the end of the Cold War to scale back the military industrial complex. I hope we don’t blow it…

That’s a reasonably fair characterization. Muslim accounts of the Crusades didn’t treat them as world-historical as the Christian accounts do. The Europeans established some settler states that lasted for a couple hundred years in some cases. They scored a handful of military victories. But, honestly, the engagement with the Muslim world had a greater impact on Christian Europe in terms of every major aspect of civilization. Christian Europe learned philosophy, mathematics, sanitation, agricultural techniques, inventions from China, and on and on. What did Muslims learn about Christian Europe? Not a great deal.

Yes, All-American Muslim was not a big hit with the TV audiences. Why? Because it was a reality show and the reality of the Muslim families participating in the exercise was all too prosaic. That was the great irony of the show. Muslim Americans were just a little too much like everyone else to warrant spending time watching their lives. The show drove home its major point — that Muslim Americans are no different from any other Americans — and failed precisely for that reason.

Yes, I would second that. Often people will say, yes, but what about the Buddhists! Surely Buddhism is a religion of peace, etc. And yes, that’s true. But as we’ve seen in Burma and other countries, many terrible things have been done in the name of Buddhism as well.

Any settlement in the Israeli-Palestinian issue is going to involve some very painful “truth and reconciliation.” In exchange for finally getting their own country, with their own foreign policy and their own economy, Palestinians will make some sacrifices. And one of the most painful ones will be this issue of justice for those who lost their family members, their land, their livelihoods. That’s why it’s essential that the United States play a true “honest broker” role in this process by helping the weaker party and restraining the stronger party. I haven’t seen much evidence that Washington can or would play such a role. But, as I said, the shift in discourse on the issue over the last couple years has been quite surprising….

Yes, he’s a politician first and foremost. It’s our job as citizens and activists to make sure he does the right thing even if it’s for all the wrong reasons….

yes, the MB does differ country by country. And it is reacting to different conditions. But, in general, we have seen an evolution in the Brotherhood’s approach to politics.

This is a big question and one that perhaps goes beyond the scope of this discussion. But, briefly, we have to sever the connection between jobs and the military. Right now, even progressive politicians will vote for ludicrous Cold-War era systems simply because they mean jobs for their districts. Unless and until we create other economic opportunities for those workers, and convince the politicians that these opportunities are better than military manufacturing, we’ll be stuck with the gross obesity of the Pentagon.