Glenn Beck devoted a large part of his February 14 Fox News show to smearing Maajid Nawaz, a British Muslim who co-founded the anti-extremism think tank Quilliam. Beck baselessly suggested that Nawaz's renunciation of his extremist past couldn't be trusted and used his involvement with the Alliance for Youth Movements, a nonprofit group that supports grassroots activism, to suggest that it's in bed with radical Islamists and communists.

Elsewhere in the News Corp. empire, however, the reaction to Nawaz is much different.

Today, The Wall Street Journal published an op-ed (subscription required) by Nawaz explaining how the leaders of Egypt's revolution favor “secular democratic politics” over Islamism and how the “alarmist” approach to the Muslim Brotherhood fueled by people like Beck doesn't reflect reality:

Naturally, the potential for democracy in Egypt has raised fears that Islamists will take over, establishing a popular yet anti-Western and anti-Israel leadership. Being the most organized opposition group, the Muslim Brotherhood is the focus of these fears.

Alarmists would have us believe that we are on the brink of another Iran-style Islamist takeover, with the destruction of Israel as its obsession. The complacent, meanwhile, dangerously understate the threat. Interestingly, they are the very same voices who argued as recently as a month ago that the Brotherhood represents the only credible opposition in Egypt. Somewhere in the middle stand reasonable voices calling for critical engagement.

[...]

A recent poll by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy found that Muslim Brotherhood leaders received barely 1% of Egyptians' support for the presidency. Only 7% of respondents believed that “the [Mubarak] regime is not Islamic enough.” This suggests that the Brotherhood is likely to win some seats in parliament but unlikely to produce the next president or prime minister of Egypt.

How, then, should policy makers think of the Brotherhood?

In a recent hearing of the U.S. House Intelligence Committee, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper asserted that the Brotherhood is a “largely secular” group. Such blunders are grossly counterproductive, as they hinder the clarity of understanding needed to plan for various contingencies, like Islamist ascendancy.

On the other hand, the alarmist approach -- taken by many in Israel, for example -- would seem to trade long-term regional security for short-term stability. As the former George W. Bush administration official Elliott Abrams remarked, “the Israelis apparently do not see the irony that they are mourning the departure of the man who created the very situation they now fear.” (Returning to the recent Washington Institute poll, more Egyptians supported peace with Israel than rejected it, and only 18% approved of either Hamas or Iran.)

British Prime Minister David Cameron and former Prime Minister Tony Blair have taken a more cautious and reasonable approach. In his groundbreaking speech in Munich, Mr. Cameron declared, “I simply don't accept that there's a dead-end choice between a security state and Islamist resistance.” And concerning the risk of a Brotherhood takeover, Mr. Blair said that “The truth is I don't know and neither does anybody else. And therefore what I am really saying is, don't be hysterical about it but don't be complacent about it either.”

As long as we engage all peaceful opposition forces with our eyes open, Egypt can become a beacon for Arab democracy. Like Turkey's, Egypt's largely secular army is wary of an Islamist takeover. If we can help Egyptians build a democratic society for the first time in their history, we may see the dawn of a new post-Islamist age that transforms political dynamics world-wide.

It makes sense that the Journal might have simply sought out someone it sees as a moderate Muslim to offer an opinion on Egypt. But given the recent split within the conservative movement over Beck's "lunatic theories" on Egypt, is it possible that the right-wing Journal editorial page is signaling that Beck has gone too far by baselessly smearing Nawaz?