How the world’s second most common religion too often gets perverted, misunderstood, and misrepresented by Westerners and Arabs alike
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4606002.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4199618.stm
Sorry… I’m about to embark on a pretty controversial discussion on religious conflict, but my original goal was just to present you with a brief summary of Islam for those who are curious. I’ll restrict myself to theology for now, and save the truculent politics for my blog later. Considering today’s pilgrimage stampede in Mecca adding to the long list of Muslim-related human tragedies, many Westerners are probably wondering what the heck is wrong with Islam, or at least some of the people devotedly or fraudulently practicing it. Just as Christian doctrine does not guarantee that its followers will love people as Jesus taught (and historically Christianity has claimed more lives in the name of religion than all other faiths by far), Islam’s teachings are applied in sometimes very peculiar or upsetting ways today. But if we at least try to understand the basic tenets of the faith, we can better assess its implementation by humankind and effects on world events.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060095571/qid=1137101416/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/00...
I recently read a concise description of Islam from Huston Smith, a Religious Studies professor at Berkeley and formerly of MIT. He is not a Muslim, but wrote several examinations into human religions, including the famous text The World’s Religions (which presents the major human religions pretty apolitically and fairly). Islam is the second most prevalent religion on Earth, yet it seems to be the most misunderstood and misrepresented in the 21st century (by some Westerners and Muslims alike). In the news headlines (when they’re not talking about West Virginian miners and celebrity gossip), we learn that Sunnis and Shiites are butchering each other daily in Iraq. But what are the differences between Sunni and Shiite Muslims? Some of us may know that Muslims celebrate Ramadan and make pilgrimages to Mecca, but what do those rituals actually represent? Regardless of faith, most people in the West know what Hanukah or Easter symbolize, and may even be able to recite the Ten Commandments or the names of Jesus’ apostles. That is clear social bias in a supposedly religiously tolerant nation. If you’re surprised by your ignorance on Islam, you’re not the only one. I won’t comment on the political manipulation of Islam, but merely describe the central dogma so that we can better understand basic Muslim beliefs and habits. But don’t take my and Smith’s word alone, please check out what conservative “experts” have to say about Islam! :)
http://www.conservativebookclub.com/products/BookPage.asp?prod_cd=c6614
http://www.conservativebookclub.com/products/SearchResults.asp?ProdCat=ISL&...
In a future email I’ll discuss examples of the Right's reasonable representations or unfair depictions of Islam and Muslim people, but here are some links for now if you’re curious.
http://www.secularislam.org/humanrights/compatible.htm
http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/HL718.cfm
http://www.heritage.org/Research/RussiaandEurasia/Test102903.cfm
http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed091901a.cfm
http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/hl855.cfm
http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed020205c.cfm
http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed05282003.cfm
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/eibessential/war_on_terror/how_we_win_the_war_...
CRASH COURSE IN ISLAM
Of course the fundamental teachings of any religion do not guarantee that its followers devotedly adhere to the creed. We know that ministers, monks, and priests of any faith may severely deviate from their fundamental values due to pride, lust, greed, and the other “deadly sins”. But since we know very little about Islam, it behooves us to at least verse ourselves in the core beliefs, history, and rituals, before we spout off our personal judgments about Muslims.
As a “non-Western” religion, Islam has the closest ties to the West and Judeo-Christianity. However, neighbors often produce the worst blood feuds. The followers of the three Abrahamic religions have at times coexisted in harmony and respected mutual differences, such as Moorish Spain and Jerusalem. Actually powerful Christians perpetrated the majority of the religious prejudice and persecution on Jewish and Muslim populations, though Muslims spilt their fair share of blood too. This “Clash of Civilizations” has occurred over more than a millennium, but the conflict is of course not purely religious in nature. Competing economic and political considerations have fanned the fires of intolerance and hostility, resulting in horrible episodes in the Balkans conflicts, Moorish invasions, the Inquisition, and the Crusades. While Caucasian Europe was fumbling through the Dark Ages, the Arab-Islamic world was flourishing in a Renaissance that lasted centuries. Like the Chinese, they led the planet in technological, cultural, and social innovations, becoming the vanguards of “civility” of their realm. Eventually Europe rose again during the Age of Exploration, when economics/industry, politics, and Christian dogma stimulated a major power shift that has persisted until present day. The Muslim world lost its prominence, and degenerated into a potpourri of warring tribes, anti-colonial reactionaries, disgruntled/marginalized refugees, and greedy, corrupt oil empires.
Once Saladin scoffed at the infighting, inbred royal houses in Europe; now Fox News lambastes the Taleban and suicide bombers. The metamorphosis was stunning, so we can see how Islam could become so pivotal, divisive, and in some cases, perverted during such tumultuous times. Whether the Judeo-Christian West and Muslim Middle East are actually at war or not, we have seen how historical leaders and propaganda movements on both sides have served to warp the public’s perceptions and assumptions concerning their supposed enemy.
MUHAMMAD
Islam reinforced monotheism in the Middle East by proclaiming Allah as god. Not the true god or the one god, but simply the god. The word is similar to the Hebrew deity word “elohim” with different grammar. In Koranic-Biblical history, Adam’s line begat Noah, who had a son named Shem. The “Semitic” peoples (Jews and Arabs) descended from this family, culminating in the patriarch Abraham. Abraham’s first wife Sarah bore Isaac, and his second wife Hagar bore Ishmael (probably the impetus for the word “Islam”, which now means surrender [to god]). Sarah didn’t care for her rivals, so she ordered Abraham to banish them. Ishmael’s tribe settled in Arabia (specifically Mecca) to become the Arabs, and Isaac’s people remained in Palestine to become the Jews. The Torah/Bible and Koran then proceed to deviate. After the birth and death of Christ, nothing much happened for Muslims until the epic arrival of Muhammad in 570 AD. He is named “The Seal of the Prophets” because no true prophet would ever follow, and supposedly doesn’t need to. Although Islam does recognize Moses, Jesus, and a myriad of other Semitic prophets, Muhammad is the culmination of god’s love and guidance for people. Muhammad was born into a chaotic, ignorant Arabia replete with tribalism and vice. The prevailing religion was animistic polytheism. While Jesus was humbly born a nobody during Roman occupation, Muhammad came to the Muslims under very turbulent conditions.
Unlike Jesus, he was a noble in the dominant Mecca clan (the Koreish), and his name means “highly praised” (it then became the most common male name in history). He was an orphan as a child (parents and grandfather all died), and tended livestock for his uncle until god’s angels supposedly came to him. He was an upright, kind, and trustworthy individual who was greatly troubled by the flawed world around him. As an adult, he became a caravan trader and married a wealthy older widow named Khadija. He often reflected on Mount Hira outside of Mecca, and god began to enter his thoughts. His countrymen already recognized the existence of the Semitic deity Allah among many other rivals, but now Muhammad would tell them that Allah was the god. In 610 during the month that is now known as Ramadan, god finally commissioned Muhammad to spread the word, and that event is known as the Night of Power. He returned to his wife terribly distressed and manic, but she told him to be happy that he was chosen to be such a great figure (similar, yet different, to the Jewish Moses and Mormon Joseph Smith stories, huh?).
Unlike his predecessors, Muhammad refused to “work miracles” for the incredulous, superstitious public to heed his message. He felt that god’s righteousness was enough, but his peers differed. Like Jesus, they found Muhammad and his revolutionary teachings to be threatening (challenging polytheism, decadence, and the social order), and proceeded to banish him and his few followers. His famous migration to Medina (meaning “the city”) in 622 would be known as the Hijra. A failed preacher in Mecca, he was a brilliantly successful statesman in Medina. Living meekly, he tended goats and mended his own clothes (more than we can say of our humble “civil servants” in DC!), and on the job he practiced justice as well as mercy. The people loved him, and he successfully allied the five major factions (three of which were Jewish) into a confederacy. Now becoming a general, he commanded the city’s forces against the Meccan armies, was severely wounded, but eventually conquered his homeland (returning victorious to his hometown again during Ramadan). When he died in 632, most of Arabia was under his rule. His greatest political accomplishment was uniting the warring tribes into a cohesive “Islamic” empire that would endure for centuries. His successors captured land as far off as Persia, Morocco, and Spain. If Charles Martel’s forces did not win the Battle of Tours in 733, maybe all of Caucasian Europe would have become Muslim. Scholar Michael Hart places Muhammad as the number one most influential person in history, even ahead of Jesus.
THE KORAN
While Muhammad is the clear champion of Islam, the center of the faith on Earth is the Koran (al-qur’an), meaning recitation. Muhammad called it “god’s standing miracle”. It rivals the Bible for the most read and memorized text on the planet. Instead of healing the sick or raising the dead, Muhammad worked his only miracle by giving the people the Koran, supposedly the direct words of god not witnessed since the Ten Commandments (so it should be taken literally). It’s about 80% the length of the New Testament, and divided into 114 chapters. Verses came to Muhammad at different times in his life, and the text supposedly builds on the Torah and Gospels as god’s revelations for people to follow. Muslims believe that the other holy texts are valid but flawed by human corruptions/transmission, so the Koran is the pure word. But Koranic scholars find it to be a terribly difficult text to read and decipher. Its prose is dry, heady, and incoherent or tedious at times (plus we lose something in the translation from Arabic) – but it is meant to be orally recited, not read and dissected. While many religious texts convey a story (often the origin story or history of the practicing people), the Koran is instead a doctrinal manual for living as god commands (emphasizing deeds instead of ideas). While Muslims freely admit their text is not very accessible to outsiders, they prefer it because the Koran is the word of god, not stories about god written by humans, like the Bible or Bhagavad-Gita.
CONCEPTS OF THE FAITH
The basic theological concepts of Islam are identical to Judeo-Christianity. God is established as the unseen, all-powerful, omnipotent deity, and Jesus is not considered the son of god because that would unacceptably blur the line between humanity and divinity. But unlike in Judaism, Allah is not a wrathful or vengeful depiction of god, as compassion/mercy is cited in the Koran over ten times more frequently than wrath – the Koran’s message is joy. God created man in his image, so our fundamental nature is good. We should praise god at all times, and actually the misused term “infidel” denotes ungrateful people. Islam means “surrender”, so it’s implied that giving oneself to god will free people of all the burdens and sins of life. The individual soul is eternal, and upon death and the Day of Judgment, souls will either go to the opulent, beautiful heavens to see god’s face, or to the tortuous, harsh hells below. I don’t know how many nude virgins await us in heaven, if any (Smith does not comment).
Some of you might be familiar with the notion of the “Five Pillars of Islam”. The surah (straight path) is the roadmap for living a good Muslim life, following the Five Pillars. God revealed his nature to Abraham, then Moses gave us the Ten Commandments, and Jesus asked us to love each other. The Koran tells the world how we should love in concrete laws. The first pillar is Shahadah, or recitation of the creed/profession of the faith (similar to the Nicene Creed for Catholics). The second pillar is canonical/ritualized prayer (Salat), encouraging Muslims to be constant in their prayers. This will remind people to give thanks to god and remember their place in the world, as well as the relative importance of things (wealth, family, faith, laws, etc.).
There is a funny origin story about the evolution of the five daily prayers. Muhammad ascended to heaven where god told him to instruct the people to pray to him 50 times daily. He prepared to return to Earth, but Moses stopped him and said something like “You’re kidding, I know human nature and it won’t work. Go back an negotiate.” Muhammad was ashamed, but eventually it was haggled down to five daily prayers, which is a regimen that the faithful are likely to actually follow! The prayers occur at awakening, when the sun is peaked, mid-decline, sunset, and before bed. Friday is the closest thing to a holy day for Muslims to go to mosque, but congregationism is stressed much more in Judeo-Christianity (most of Islam’s tenets are personal in nature, except social charity). Muslims first prayed in the direction of Jerusalem, but now point towards Mecca in worldwide fellowship. As one might expect, the content of the prayer is praise, gratitude, and supplication (often in the fetal position, implying rebirth).
Charity (Zakat) is the third pillar, since those who have light burdens must help others with heavy ones (at least 1/40th tax on your total holdings, but the poor are exempt). Material possessions are acknowledged as human necessity, unlike the supposed rejection of wealth by Christians and Buddhists. It’s not un-Muslimlike to be rich if you earned it from hard work, but one shouldn’t be greedy/stingy. It’s amazing that Muhammad implemented the welfare state in the 7th century. Donations should be given to the destitute, to slaves buying their freedom, to the indebted, to visitors/travelers, and to alms/tribute collectors.
The fourth pillar is Sawm, or fasting for Ramadan, the holy month when Muslims celebrate the vision that Muhammad received and his ensuring triumphant return to Mecca. Able-bodied Muslims (non-elderly and those not affected by crises/war) fast as long as the sun is up (no food, drink, or smoking). The symbolism of fasting is to improve self-discipline, remind oneself of human frailty/dependence on god, and become more receptive to others in need. The last pillar is pilgrimage (or Hajj, as the current stampede unfortunately soured). Every physically and economically able Muslim must journey to Mecca at least once. This is intended to heighten personal devotion and create oneness with worldwide Muslims. All distinguishing attire is removed, and all are equals – which further promotes international understanding, equality, and diplomacy. The purpose of the pillars is to keep the house of Islam upright and healthy.
SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS
In addition to the pillars, Muslims shouldn’t gamble, steal, lie, drink liquor, eat pork, or be promiscuous. The Koran says nothing about mistreating women, honor killings, growing beards, reverting to 7th century life, and blowing up themselves with a C4 vest. Pre-Islamic Arabia was full of spousal abuse, violence, wealth inequalities, social excess, and even infanticide. The explicitness of Islam for improving daily living reversed a lot of these destructive habits. In Spirit of Islam, the author Ali wrote that Jesus’ “work was left unfinished [and] reserved for another teacher to systematize the laws of morality”. Politics, society, and religion are inseparable to Muslims – for better or worse.
Economically, Muslims model their behavior on the body’s circulation. Money is blood, so it must flow freely in society from the producers to the needy. If any part goes without, the body may die. Therefore profit, competition, and entrepreneurship are condoned, just as long as the arteries can still flow (which is probably not the case in Saudi Arabia or Indonesia with such stark economic disparity and oil corruption). Hard work and great ideas merit more wealth, but not at the expense of the needy. Blood/money can’t be allowed to pool and clot either; so Islamic law states that the poor be compensated, usury minimized, and inheritance shared equally among heirs (women too). Quite different than the Bush estate and investment tax reforms, but there I go again with more politics. You can thank me later for restraining myself until the last section, so fear not because your reading is almost completed!
In terms of women’s issues, Islam does permit polygamy (up to four wives) but women are not property. In fact, women were granted legal rights in the Islamic world much sooner than their Western counterparts (and that was due to democracy, not Christianity). Divorce is forbidden except as last resort for extreme circumstances. As in other religions, gender issues are ambiguous. Stoning is prescribed for adulterers (men and women alike, but Jewish law’s punishment is equivalent), social dancing is forbidden, yet a marriage is only valid with the woman’s consent and polygamy is only permitted if the man is economically able and demonstrating that he will love all his wives equally. Muhammad intended such harsh punishments for violations of gender conduct rules to remind people of the importance and sanctity of their relationship activities. Muslims counter the polygamy criticisms by saying that many Westerners can’t stomach the demands of monogamy, and even engage in “serial polygamy” by remarrying after divorce. Women are not obliged to “cover up”, unless they are traveling abroad. I suppose some theologians have abused this tenet. Racially, Islam is inclusive and all are equal in the eyes of god. There are huge Muslim communities of every major race except Native Americans, Aborigines, and Latinos (mostly due to geography). Just for comparison, this is a far cry from the Christian “White Man’s Burden” and the exclusion of colored people from Mormon temples until 1978.
http://www.geocities.com/packham33/temples2.htm
And now the coup de grace: the use of force. Some believe that Muhammad established his Islamic regime by force, and clearly Muslims are not pacifists. Muslims should forgive, but repay in justice whatever is warranted (a gray statement open to diverse interpretations). As a general, Muhammad forbade torture and desecration of enemies. Civilians were not targets and pillaging/defacing was not permitted. Maybe this is why the Iraq war and Abu Ghraib are such sacrilege for Muslims. Jihad (meaning exertion to safeguard the house of Islam) can require a holy war, but a righteous war must be defensive or to right a wrong (like WWII supposedly). The Koran says that “God hates the aggressor (2:190)”, which is a slap in the face to terrorism and preemptive war doctrine. Resistance and retribution are another story, so there are of course many opinions concerning the righteousness of Hamas or Al Qaeda. However, I do not know how Muhammad created his empire without aggression. But clearly he was not a tyrant like Hitler or Genghis Khan, as some Western conservatives would allege. Smith argues that Christianity has spread via the sword much more than Islam (pre-20th century), which relies more on “persuasion and example”. In Medina, Muhammad permitted freedom of religion (minus the mandatory Muslim charity for the poor), granted Jews membership in his commonwealth, and even permitted Christians to practice their rituals in Muslim mosques. The Moors and Ottomans permitted the Eastern Orthodox Church seat to remain in Constantinople for their entire rule, yet Christians expelled or killed all non-Christians when they reclaimed Spain. But few Muslims will deny the sometime terrible track record of excessive force in their religion’s history.
To conclude, let’s have a little bit of nomenclature. Islam is not homogeneous, and is divided mostly between Sunnis, Shiites, and Sufis. Sunnis (traditionalists) are 87% of all Muslims, and Shiites (meaning partisans) are mostly confined to Iraq and Iran. There was a power play for leadership transfer after Muhammad’s death. Shiites believe that Muhammad’s son-in-law Ali should have been his successor, but was passed over multiple times until he was finally elected the leader of Muslims (Caliph, like their pope), only to be assassinated by rivals. Unfortunately, people are dying daily due to this rift centuries ago. Sufis (meaning wool, signifying such garments in protest of the opulent silks of decadent people) are like mystics/ascetics in Hinduism. Their motto is “love the pitcher less and the water more”, meaning that Muslims should be more introspective, pure, and internal with their spirituality. Sufism is one of five main “traditions” or sects that evolved after the death of Muhammad. Islamic history and lore is almost as complex as its Christian counterparts, but briefly the other traditions groups are the Mutazilites (logical philosophers, some are modernist reformers today), Murjites (egalitarian pacifists), Kharijites (violent, political radicals who killed Caliph Ali of the Shiites, but these “heretics” are currently extinct), and “legalists” (those who established Shari’a law, and follow fundamentalism today).
There is much more to say of course, but I think this is a decent first primer in Islam for people like us. I hope that we can gain a new appreciation for a beautiful religion practiced by over a billion humans, yet the noble message is perverted and spoiled by a misguided few (or many, depending on your views). I don’t know all the ways that Islam’s core teachings are affecting the world today, but it’s clear that they do have an effect, often in substantial ways. But as a general rule, the more we learn, the better we may understand, and the better off the world will be with enhanced understanding. So much of human conflict (especially between Western Judeo-Christians and Arab Muslims) is the result of ignorance and the refusal to even attempt to understand. May we never adopt and follow that religion.
http://www.masnet.org/index.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam
Don’t read any further if you want to avoid my politics, but I’ll post more comments on Islam and the West on my blog.
--------
DOMESTIC ISSUES WITH ISLAM
We Americans may know more about Santa Claus mythology than actual Islam. I find this very peculiar and troubling, since we expect other peoples to respect America as the “greatest country on Earth”, wise, benevolent, and sometimes “the world’s policeman”. How can we be so ignorant about a religion practiced by over a billion humans, including millions of Americans? It’s true that the USA is one of the freest nations in history concerning freedom and diversity of speech, ethnicity, and religion. Many Muslim-Americans are justifiably grateful and supportive of our nation, society, and principles. Some are fervent patriots, and might even back our president in national security actions against people of Arab or Muslim heritage who may or may not pose a legitimate danger to us. But the government has also intimidated, harassed, conducted covert wiretaps, inspected for nukes, and froze assents of plenty of Muslim-Americans and their mosques (sources below). Maybe these measures are essential for America’s safety, as Samuel Alito or Sean Hannity might argue.
People used to think that imprisoning and dispossessing Japanese-Americans would help us win WWII (and Michelle Malkin still does: http://www.reason.com/0412/cr.em.indefensible.shtml). A half-century later, most of us acknowledge that move was a mistake, and America’s democratic principles took the back seat to wartime nationalistic fervor and racist paranoia. Some Muslim-Americans may be actual threats to national security, like the “American Taleban” John Lindh and José Padilla, supposedly. But some are just innocent victims targeted by profiling (which is unconstitutional, but some officials are trying to change that). In the past, the USA/UN has even waged war partly to aid victims of internal persecution, such as European Jews, Balkan peoples, and East Timorese. Of course those peoples were abused and killed by oppressors, so we hope things will never deteriorate so badly for any minorities in our country (too late for Native Americans and blacks though).
http://www.aclu.org//safefree/general/17166prs20030127.html
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/01/28/inv.charilty.lawsuit/
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/12/23/terror/main1164950.shtml
http://www.alternet.org/wiretap/13218
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2298433.stm
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1081
http://www.hamilton.edu/news/muslimamerica/summary.html
Now we have painted a new subset of Americans as treacherous security risks. Many Muslim-Americans would claim that they are the ones who are more justified to feel threatened by their countrymen since 9/11, with the rise in anti-Muslim/Arab hate crimes. Even Indian/Latino people who might “look Muslim” are discriminated and profiled, especially at airports. It’s a shameful reality that many American minorities feel so unaccepted, misunderstood, and uncomfortable in their own nation.
http://www.arabbar.org/art-report.asp
We expect others to embrace our culture, values, and Judeo-Christian heritage (and sometimes we unfortunately shovel it down their throats). Our president thinks he’s on a divine mission, and many conservative Christians are under a persecution complex. Republicans were complaining wildly as they campaigned in 2004, yet they controlled all three branches of federal government and most gubernatorial seats. What’s the problem? 80% of Americans identify themselves as “Christian” (according to CNN), yet many feel their faith is under attack by Islam and atheists. Our political leaders are constantly battling to push for more or less religion in the public sphere, debating over such pressing or inconsequential matters like gay marriage, abortion/right to die laws, intelligent design, and public displays/proclamations of religion. We’re currently at war in two unstable Muslim nations, and Russia/Former Soviet Republics, Israel, Egypt, China, Pakistan/India, Sudan, Australia, France, Britain, Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines, and others are also dealing with Muslim “troublemakers” or “terrorists”. So over two thirds of the world’s people are experiencing conflict involving Islamic issues. Of course those clashes are not completely religious in nature, but as we’ve seen in Europe and the Middle East in the 20th century, ethno-religious identity and nationalistic belligerence often coalesce into a very destructive force. We Americans are supposedly very spiritual and tolerant of religions, we understand its importance to a healthy society, and there is major incentive to learn about Islam considering such pressing domestic and world affairs. Yet we still know very little, even people like us in the top 10% of most educated Americans.
http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_islam_usa.html
THE MUSLIM WORLD AND THE USA IN CONFLICT?
In the War on Terror (or G-SAVE, if you will), no person of credibility ever claimed that the US and her allies are waging war against Islam. But unfortunately I can’t say the same for our religious conservative ideologues: http://www.rutherford.org/oldspeak/articles/religion/oldspeak-war-Islam2.asp. Besides Al Qaeda, ultra-extremist Jews, and the Christian Coalition, no one wants such a conflict I suppose. Even the Bushies realize that it would be foolhardy, since the majority of our foreign oil comes from Muslim nations and Muslims outnumber Americans about 4:1 in the world. Only two members of our “Coalition of the willing” are Muslim nations (and no members are Arab, understandably), and those poor countries were enticed with major military-financial incentives. Afghanistan is also part of the coalition, though their membership is somewhat dubious for obvious reasons. Azerbaijan has given Coalition warplanes permission to enter their airspace as they fly from NATO’s European bases to Afghanistan, but Uzbekistan hosts US bases. Both of those former Soviet republics have dealt with Muslim terrorism/insurgency issues predating 9/11, so I am sure the governments welcomed a stabilizing US partnership (but their people didn’t). Uzbekistan is the seat of a repressive dictatorship, and there is major dissent to close our airbases (with China and Russia’s prodding of course).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2862343.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4716563.stm
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=758554
Just to maintain fair appearances, Chomsky believes that North Korea was added to the Axis of Evil and Syria left out, so as to not suggest that we are waging war on Islam (yet they’re all anti-American enemies in Washington’s eyes). But a “War on Islam” is exactly what extremists like Osama and Zarqawi desire, because it would be a rallying cry for poor, desperate Muslims to fight to the death against a perceived infidel enemy bent on their destruction. It would realize and justify Cheney’s vision that “civilized” Western societies must destroy the barbarian hordes from the Middle East before they do the same to us. Bush said, “We love freedom; they hate freedom… the best way to protect the country is to hunt the killers down.” After all the dangerous and irresponsible rhetoric, as well as our staunch allegiance with Israel during questionable ventures (that has compromised our national ideals and diplomatic credibility on many occasions), the two Gulf Wars, and various actions in Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Sudan, and Afghanistan, everyday Muslims don’t need “propagandists” at Al Jazeera to put the puzzle pieces together.
Islam does indeed condone violence in the name of faith, under certain very rigorous and selective conditions. This is quite different from Buddhism (and supposedly Christianity, though the only true pacifist group are the Quakers… maybe minus Nixon). But clearly, Christianity leads the pack by a huge margin regarding hate crimes in the name of “faith”, yet many fundamentalists would like to believe that they are the true victims (maybe in a misguided effort to suffer as Christ and the Saints did, without embracing Christian love/compassion for their haters). However, jihad is not what Fox News claims. It is not a holy war to the death, where martyrs immolate themselves in a crowded marketplace and ascend to heaven for an eternity of rewards with plenty of virgins. The term literally means struggle or exertion, implying that the worldwide “House of Islam” must be safeguarded diligently from enemies. After the multiple Crusades and colonial escapades launched by “good, god-fearing Christian Europeans” (with Papal blessing) over the past millennium in North Africa and the Middle East, you can imagine why some Muslims are wary, if not a little trigger-happy.
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/whitehurst.php?articleid=3842
Some immoral, confused Muslims take “jihad” way too far, and actually become the violent caricatures that Limbaugh types propagate. But the self-fulfilling prophecy works to the West’s favor (the most recent example being Iraq, until it all went to hell): xenophobia, ignorance, and propaganda encourage us to assume that Muslims are murderous barbarians who loathe our way of life. Due to this perceived threat, we enact unjust treatment and policies against them. While bombing their homes, plundering their natural resources, and supporting brutal dictators, we still expect “good Muslims” to embrace our presence and values. Yet reactionaries inevitably emerge to oppose the apparent foreign occupation and desecration of all they hold dear (land, faith, family). Such insurgents were victorious in Algeria against the French, in Iran against the US-puppet Shah, in Afghanistan against the Soviets, and now in Iraq against us. Fueled by nationalism and the influence of religious ideologues, Muslim combatants rise up and fight by any means at their disposal. They fight with suicide bombers, IEDs, and snipers because repressive forces have cut off more peaceful alternatives: they have very little political voice and diplomatic/media recognition. I can’t go into a history of Western-encouraged injustice/repression in the Middle East, but my previous emails/blog entries have addressed some instances (please see “Bush’s Double-Talk”, “Terrorism”, “Osama Bin Laden”, and “War on Terror”). Of course some of Islam’s negative perceptions are self-inflicted and deserved, but the West has done much to create the stereotype of the “murderous Muslim”. Our foreign policy has practically baited them into adopting this identity, so that their relatively infrequent attacks on us, such as the USS Cole and very traumatic 9/11, validate our reciprocal distrust and hostility towards them.
The West’s actions are the very reason why extremists like Zarqawi and Osama have a voice and a frighteningly large following. Instead of exporting our best social qualities, goodwill, and wealth to the Muslim world, many Middle Easterners have only seen our dark side: economic exploitation, political corruption, and brash imperialism. We supposedly push for democracy in Iraq, yet condone unscrupulous allies in Egypt, some of the ‘Stans, and Azerbaijan who refuse to conduct fair elections, not to mention our outright support of objectionable Muslim figures like Saddam, Musharraf, the Mujahadeen (including Bin Laden), and Suharto. We lobby for trade embargoes against Saddam and Khomeini (but poor Arabs suffered much worse than the Baathists or Ayatollahs as a result), yet our corporations manage to strike under-the-table deals to reap tainted profits in the Gulf with very little concern from Washington. We immediately come to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia’s aid to defend our oil interests, yet do nothing for oppressed women in Turkey, or Palestinian and Sudanese refugees under attack. We rightly condemn all forms of Muslim terrorism, yet Bush Jr. hails Sharon as “a man of peace” during Israel’s illegal West Bank offensive in 2002, and Bush Sr. refused to apologize for our downing of an Iranian passenger airliner in 1988. (Sources and additional information in links below)
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/25/opinion/25carothers.html?ex=1293166800&en...
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/2002/0807ngostudy.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4445609.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3908753.stm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A12206-2002Apr18?language=printer
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=165
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Page=ForeignBureausarchive200507F...
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/08/poll.binladen/index.html
I could go on and on, but your patience is wearing thin and it’s too depressing for all parties involved. We do need to be honest with the facts if we are to fairly assess our relations with the Muslim world and the prospects for the War on Terror. With such a track record, it’s no wonder that common Muslims are maybe more inclined to embrace Al Qaeda’s message rather than Bush’s. Except for our aid to tsunami victims in Indonesia and ridding Iraq/Afghanistan of bad regimes, what good have we done for Muslims? And after our two invasions, we replaced Saddam/Taleban with corrupt lackeys, Islamists, and bloody sectarian strife. Apart from some Israelis, decadent oil sheiks, and pro-occupation Iraqis, have we convinced anyone that the USA is good for the Muslim world, or at least a better alternative to Al Qaeda and other Islamist groups? Maybe not, considering that Islamists cleaned up and pro-US, secular centrists flopped in the Iraq vote (see my previous entry, “Iraq Election Aftermath”, for more information), and two thirds of the Palestinian seats in Gaza went to Hamas candidates in last January’s election. Mahmoud Abbas’ Fatah movement (that favors a two-state solution with Israel versus Hamas’ wishes for all-out war) faired better in a May election, but the big test will come on January 25. If Abbas can’t withstand Hamas’ challenge, the US may cut aid to Palestine as retaliation. The Arabs were granted democracy, and many of them are voting for “terrorists” to represent them. Where did the USA and Israel go wrong, or are the Muslims completely mad? Maybe it’s a combination of both.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4214375.stm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7747165
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060113/wl_nm/mideast_hamas_dc_2
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/01/13/MNG7CGMM0B1.DTL&...
We must reap what we sow, and our transgressions in the Muslim world have created generations of poor, angry militants who have done us harm, challenged our foreign interests, and will probably cause future problems if we do not change course. The War on Terror cannot be permitted to degenerate into a militaristic struggle over Islam, or very dark skies await us. As Chomsky argues, the more we try to suppress Middle Eastern terrorism with more heavy-handed imperialism, the closer we actually come to peril and national destruction. For those who see no problem in blurring the lines between church and state, this is the potential grave danger in doing so. Religion and nationalism are a terrible combination, as we’ve seen in so many unfortunate cases, especially during WWII. Apart from the obvious racial prejudices augmenting brutalities, Nazism was the “state religion” of the Third Reich, Bolshevism was the same for the Soviets, and the Japanese hailed Hirohito as a god. Normal people get sick of fighting pointless territorial battles, as was the case with WWI. But no one wants to lose an epic struggle for survival (good versus evil and all), which is unfortunately what every religious war becomes in order to better motivate the populace (Bushies and right wing media are trying to sell the War on Terror as such). People will then resort to such abhorrent methods to secure victory, because their sacrifices are “righteous” and the alternative is unthinkable (losing Jerusalem, heretics running amok, England breaking off from the Vatican, infidels occupying the Middle East, the destruction of the USA, etc.). Obviously the USA has not come close to sinking so low as the Nazis or Soviets in this “battle of survival”, but we’ve already compromised so many of our ideals, stretched laws, and caused the deaths of tens of thousands of people.
A powerful moment in the recent film “Munich” summarizes the cycle of violence. A Mossad agent tells a PLO agent that their brutal terror methods will make the world see them as monsters and not support their cause. But the Palestinian replies that the world will see that the cold-blooded Jews/Americans have turned them into monsters. They supposedly have no choice but to commit such acts to fight back, or face certain defeat. Michael Moore has called on the Palestinians to adopt MLK-style nonviolent resistance to attract worldwide attention and gain the moral high ground against the Israelis. But many Muslims believe that the world won’t care if the Jews subjugate the Palestinians (especially with US backing), so they better go down fighting, and fight dirty if necessary. Obviously the paranoid Israelis have good reason to protect their people and distrust their Muslim neighbors, after multiple wars and countless acts of terrorism against civilians, but I feel that they go too far at times. Like US foreign policy, brutal Israeli aggression against Palestinian “threats” may actually make Jews less safe in the long run. I don’t know which side is “in the right” for such a moral quandary, but I tend to believe that everyone is at fault for their lack of tolerance and cooperation. At present, I’m not passing any judgment over Israel-Palestine issues or terrorism as a valid form of resistance, but just trying to elucidate the progression of violence from a cause-and-effect standpoint. Clearly the murder of innocents on 9/11 or in Amman, Jordan has nothing to do with jihad or righteousness. In fact, the Koran specifically mandates that women and children must not be harmed during warfare, and prisoners must be treated humanely. Those holy soldiers who fight for Allah must adhere to a strict code of chivalrous conduct, otherwise they are just murderers like Osama or ideologues like Bush.
It’s sadly ironic that three religions with common ancestry have been at each other’s throats much too much over the course of history. It’s probably hard to reverse or even mitigate such a long legacy of conflict, but by no means does the “history of violence” exempt the USA and her allies, as well as Islamic terrorism groups, of their political gaffes and brutality over the last 50 years. The Crusades and T.E. Lawrence (of Arabia) did not impel Western intervention in the Lebanese civil war, 9/11, nor the Gulf Wars.
But in general, most of us have the sense that Westerners fear/hate what we don’t understand, and we choose to avoid the effort of understanding because fear/hate is easier than empathy and respect. Fear/hate motivates the public to do as they’re told, and even to engage or condone the killing of others. In the West, Islam seems almost antithetical to Judeo-Christianity, and some may believe that the two are incompatible, or democracy and Islam cannot coexist. Ann Coulter thinks we should convert everyone in the Middle East to Christianity, and that would be better for the world (http://www.therationalradical.com/diatribes/ann_coulter.htm). Fellow extremist idiots in Al Qaeda and certain mullahs favor the converse, that Muslims should force all infidels to worship Allah or face death as the alternative. The message and history of Islam are perverted so that manipulative sociopaths on both sides of the War on Terror can brainwash and incite the desperate and ignorant to fear, hate, and even take up arms against other people of a different culture/faith, who by and large pose them no threat.
No comments:
Post a Comment