A Defense of the Freedom House Study

By Daveed Gartenstein-Ross

Media Lies has a new post explaining why he is not excited about the Freedom House report that I recently highlighted.  I disagree with his conclusion that the Freedom House study is not convincing.  Nonetheless, Media Lies' post is worth reading because it demonstrates the limits of the study.

Specifically, Media Lies outlines four limitations to Freedom House study:

1. The study is a small sampling of U.S. mosques, and "[w]e can't really know if the evidence they've adduced is typical or not."
2. Most of the titles of Wahhabi literature covered in the Freedom House study were published in the 1980s and 1990s, so we don't know if they represent the current literature coming out of Saudi Arabia.
3. The study does not attempt to determine how long the materials have been in the mosques that were studied.
4. The study does not attempt to determine whether anyone was actually reading the material in question.

All four of these are indeed limitations to the scope of the study, although I don't think that #3 (the length of time that the materials were in the relevant mosques) is a very important question.  The reason I disagree with Media Lies' conclusion about the value of the study is because I don't think the study needs to do all that he asks in order to be convincing.  Nor does the study purport to prove more than it actually does; indeed, Media Lies discerns all the listed limitations to the Freedom House report by reading its methodology section.  The methodology section lucidly explains what the report attempts, and does not attempt, to demonstrate.

Here are the reasons I think the report is important, despite its limitations:

1. The report provides the reader with a good idea of the worldview advanced by Wahhabi literature.  This is important to understand.  The report provides strong analysis of Wahhabi views on Christians, Jews and other Muslims, and also exposes Wahhabist anti-Americanism, conspiracy-mongering, and jihadist propaganda.  For those unfamiliar with Wahhabi ideology, this alone should be enlightening.
2. It is important to know what Wahhabi literature has reached U.S. mosques.  A number of authors have previously analyzed Wahhabi teachings in general, but this report provides us with a first snapshot of what the literature that has actually reached the United States says.
3. Even though the literature covered in this report was mainly published during the 1980s and 1990s, it is important to know what Wahhabi literature has said over the past couple of decades.  After all, Wahhabi ideology itself has not undergone any major shift since 9/11.  Saudi Arabia claims that it has changed the hateful messages in its textbooks at home, and may also claim that it's cleaned up the literature that it distributes overseas.  But unless we understand the hateful worldview that Wahhabist literature has promoted for the last couple of decades -- and how the various components of this murderous ideology cohere -- we'll have trouble assessing any new claims of Saudi moderation.
4. The report also has functional value.  It analyzes a large number of Wahhabi publications and reveals the message that they contain.  In doing so, the report's analysis will help those mosques and Islamic centers concerned about radicalism to purge any hate-filled literature.  Policymakers concerned about the spread of radicalism in U.S. institutions -- such as the prison system -- can also rely upon the report in undertaking their work.

Even though I don't agree with Media Lies' conclusion that the Freedom House report is unconvincing, his post is worth reading.  After all, people in the blogosphere have a harmful tendency to overclaim their evidence.  But even recognizing the limitations that Media Lies points out, this is a very powerful report -- especially for those readers who, until now, were unfamiliar with the specifics of Wahhabi teaching.

TrackBack