Blaming Islam for the lack of democratic and scientific developments is not a new idea but an old enterprise, rooted in the nineteenth and twentieth century European Orientalism. Specialists who were intent on presenting Islam and Muslims in a negative light were unhappy with the positive portrayal. Many were particularly disturbed by the rise of authentic voices that presented Islam as a vibrant religion, whose followers share many of the values and concerns of the West. Led by Princeton University historian, Bernard Lewis, who led the effort to revive Orientalist notions with the publishing of his 2002 book, What Went Wrong? Western Impact and Middle Eastern Response. Using subtle arguments, he indeed placed the blame on Islam and Islamic traditions for the failure of Middle Eastern societies to develop and modernize like the West. Lewis’ book has since been followed by an avalanche of comparable articles and publications, mostly by neoconservative journalists and pundits, who reinforce Lewis’ thesis and even blaming Islam for the rise of terrorism as well as the rising tension between the West and the Muslim world.

Neoconservative pundits today lead the blame game and often present Islam as the new villain to be confronted by American military power. They have consistently presented Muslims as incapable of democratic rule, and who espouse values that are antithetical to world peace and religious tolerance. To ensure that their views are not challenged by the academic community, neoconservatives are working hard to undermine academic freedom by intimidating scholars that present a balanced view of the Middle East. Martin Kramer’s Ivory Towers on Sand: The Failure of Middle Eastern Studies in America, a diatribe against Middle East Studies in U.S. universities, and Daniel Pipes’ Campus Watch, an organization devoted to smearing professors critical of U.S. foreign policy and Israeli’s treatment of Palestinians, are two such examples. This campaign is one that aims to intimidate free thinking on Middle East politics and silence voices that challenge their perspective. Although many of the anti-Islam writers and neoconservative pundits play on the fear of the general public by publishing books for a general audience, others have been done for policymakers under the cover of respected institutions and think tanks, such as the American
Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, and the RAND Corporation. Readers should note that this activity began in 1992 when Defense Department staffers, including Lewis Libby and Paul Wolfowitz drafted the “Defense Policy Guidance.” and was followed more discretely and in more depth in a report, “Rebuilding America’s Defenses,” published in 2000 by the Project for the New American Century.

Because neoconservatives share similar attitudes and conceptions of Islam and the Middle East, often influenced by the work of Bernard Lewis, we will focus specifically on one of the most recent and frequently cited studies. Civil Democratic Islam: Partners Resources and Strategies, written by sociologist Cheryl Benard and published by the RAND Corporation in late 2003, blames the rise of intolerance, anti-democratic tendencies, and terrorism on all
Muslim groups that closely adhere to Islamic values and practices. It concludes that the only way to counter terrorism and anti-Americanism is by engaging in “religion building” and thus transforming the religion of Islam.