Each time an Islamist terrorist commits some atrocity against us, it’s natural to be angry.
It’s also natural to be angry indiscriminantly at Muslims. Not honorable, but natural. Until reason kicks in, that is.
But as the War on Terror progresses, I’m seeing a trend whereby Americans can’t get past what they see as a fundamental faithlessness among so-called Moderate Muslims: Why don’t they decry this violence? Are we to take their silence as sanction?
Personally, this strikes me somewhat as laziness and xenophobia (we don’t need our fellow Americans marching in the street to tell us they don’t support the likes of Timothy McVeigh). But I’ve realized that listing dozens of links to moderate Muslim sites that do decry the atrocities will not convince anyone for whom this remains a problem. So I’m abandoning the quantitative approach. It’s a problem. But where does it come from?
Let me begin by acknowledging the perception: the Muslims of the world are not as vocal about these acts of terror as we want/need them to be.
Personally, this “silence,” such as it is, doesn’t confuse me. I put two and two together and figure if a military power like the US is unable to completely protect itself from these killers, let alone track them down and bring them to justice, how are the people of much poorer nations supposed to stand up to them? In other words, there’s a bit of fear at play here. I fully expect, however, that argument to issue in charges of cowardice, and that’s unfair to the brave Muslims I know (and some prominent Muslim thinkers strongly deny that’s it), so I took some time to look deeper.
First I want to be honest about what we expect here (there’s no point in discussing some fantasy). We expect to be the recipient of their contrition. We feel they should be apologizing to us. Moreover, it’s not enough for them to be horrified among themselves. It doesn’t count unless they tell us they’re horrified. I understand this. Honestly.
Unfortunately, this is unlikely to happen anytime soon for one simple reason: Many Muslims, and Arabs in particular, don’t trust us. Why? They see us as hostile.
Bernard Kaykel, professor of Middle Eastern Studies at New York University, wrote an essay in 2003 titled “The Silence of Moderate Muslims.” In it, he explains why moderate Muslims feel threatened. Two main points in his argument stand out:
1) Muslims consider themselves to be surrounded and under direct military attack (and well, Iraq didn’t help that perception at all, but there’s more):
Indian Muslim scholar from Nadwat-ul-Ulema, the famous seminary in Lucknow, expressed this sentiment by stating that “a worldwide anti-Muslim alliance has been formed and is headed by the US. It runs in an arc from Hindu fundamentalist India, through China and Russia and ends with Europe and the US in the west. The effect is to encircle and choke the Islamic world.”
2) There’s a perception that the US “extends unquestioned support to the policies of the government of Israel in the on-going Palestinian Intifada.” Right or wrong, that perception speaks for itself. So, as much as moderate Muslims may not like what al Qaida is doing, they’re not too keen on what we’re doing either.
Confronted with a formidable foe, Muslims have chosen not to wash their dirty linen in public by engaging in mutual recriminations and polemical exchanges – mosque sermons, television and radio stations are more than ever insisting that Muslims remain steadfast and united against the common enemy.
While taking Haykel to task for some of his ideas, Taufiq Subhan, an Indian, backs up the claim that the “silence” is more an outcome of resentment against the United States than an endorsement of al Qaida:
[A]ll Muslim societies have gone through a period of introspection and self-analysis. What has emerged as the contemporary consensual position, articulated by political leaders, journalists, academics, Islamic organisations and ordinary individuals, is a severe and unambiguous rejection of Osama bin Laden, the Al Qaeda and bin Laden’s credo of inevitable conflict between Muslims and others.
The critique has been comprehensive: Osama is no religious scholar and has no authority to call for jehad; the violence perpetrated by him has no justification in any Islamic tract. He has served no Islamic cause; indeed with his vile conduct, he has harmed the fair name of Islam, has tarnished the image of Muslims and has set the stage for enduring violence and hatred between people and religions.
He goes on to explain that Muslims are really, really pissed at the US though (and again, this is presented to explain the silence, not to argue that the perception is correct):
However, what is unacceptable is that, post-9/11, the USA has demonised the entire Muslim community, and is subjecting Muslims to extraordinary suspicion, abuse and humiliation. Muslims are bewildered by the inability of the Americans to see that the Al Qaeda is as much the opponent of moderate Islam and its regimes as it is of the USA, primarily because they are moderates and allies of the United States.
Specifically, most people in the region find it completely unacceptable that the United States should propose to use horrendous force against Iraq (which has no links with contemporary international terror nor does it threaten the region), while giving total support to Israel even as it perpetrates the most horrible depredations against the Palestinian people. Surely, Haykel is aware that an unholy alliance of right-wing hawks, Christian fundamentalism and Zionists in the USA is today determining the administration’s approach to Middle East issues and Islam in general, alienating people and regimes who have been traditional friends, and pursuing policies that do not necessarily serve long-term US interests. It is this which is responsible for Muslim rage, and not fear of extremists or state repression, as Haykel suggests.
That “traditional friends” bit caught my attention, I have to admit. Subhan explains:
Through the 1980s, the USA saw ‘‘Islam’’ as a natural partner in its confrontation with communism and the Soviet Union, and, in association with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, enthusiastically mobilised militants from the Muslim world to participate in the Afghan jehad.
In the 1990s, the United States provided support to ‘‘Islamic’’ struggles in Chechnya and Bosnia, turned a blind eye to Pak-sponsored jehadi activity in Kashmir, and, propelled by geo-political and economic considerations, maintained the closest possible ties with the Taliban regime. Indeed, South Block mandarins will recall the serious pressure mounted by the US administration on India at that time to snap ties with the Northern Alliance and recognise the Taliban.
So the perception of faithlessness goes two directions here. Subhan is angry, his conclusion shows that, but his central thesis can be interpreted to be that although Muslims don’t like al Qaida, they don’t like the US either. They don’t feel they should have to apologize to either or support either in all this.
Sometimes telling us they are horrified does not make us see them as ‘moderate’ or less dangerous… From Reuters (about the arabic reactions on the beheading of mr. Berg):
“Hizbollah condemns this horrible act that has done very great harm to Islam and Muslims by this group that claims affiliation to the religion of mercy, compassion and humane principles,” the Shi’ite Muslim group said in a statement.
“We expect to be the recipient of their contrition. We feel they should be apologizing to us. Moreover, it’s not enough for them to be horrified among themselves. It doesn’t count unless they tell us they’re horrified. I understand this. Honestly.”
My problem with your argument is that you start off with this dramatically incorrect premise and veer forward from there.
I don’t care what the world’s Muslims say to me. I don’t need contrition. If they are Muslim and don’t believe these things than how could they apologize? They wouldn’t be at fault. The US doesn’t need them to tell us they are horrified. The only reason they might want to tell the US that they are horrified is to distinguish themselves from those who speak in their name and offer horrific acts.
If they are actually horrified they can either take their religion seriously and oppose this growing menace which claims to act in their name or they can choose to not do so and let the Islamist fundamentalists take over. This has precisely zero to do with what the US thinks about them and everything to do with how they decide to treat people who are claiming to lead them. Where are the fatwa’s saying that Al Qaeda should be hunted down like Salman Rushdie?
It comes down to this. The only actions that most moderate Muslims seem willing to take are loud and public critiques of the U.S. Their critiques of bin Laden if they exist are quiet and private. It is not racist to point out that moderate Muslims either agree with the fundamentalists, do not care enough about their own religion to contradict the fundamentalists, or are too scared to contradict the fundamentalists. These are three very human reactions to scary people. But don’t blame the U.S. for them.
“However, what is unacceptable is that, post-9/11, the USA has demonised the entire Muslim community, and is subjecting Muslims to extraordinary suspicion, abuse and humiliation. Muslims are bewildered by the inability of the Americans to see that the Al Qaeda is as much the opponent of moderate Islam and its regimes as it is of the USA, primarily because they are moderates and allies of the United States.”
I don’t doubt that many Muslims believe this, but they are either being willfully blind, or succumbing to conspiracy theories. We have quite specifically not demonized the entire Muslim community. We have made it clear again and again. We have not expelled Muslims from our borders. We have not rounded them up and put them in camps like Arab countries did with Palestinians. We most certainly are not subjecting them to extraordinary suspicion, at most we are subjecting them to ordinary or by normal human standards sub-ordinary standards of suspicion considering the extraordinary circumstances of Muslims in Al Qaeda who like to blend in with the general Muslim population in order to kill us. If we subjected them to the levels of suspicion that they use for Jews, they would be in much more serious hurt.
It comes down to this: Al Qaeda’s tactic of blending in and drawing support from Muslim communities wouldn’t be so effective if they weren’t blending in and drawing support from Muslim communities. If you are a moderate Muslim you might want to do something to make sure that Al Qaeda doesn’t blend into your community and draw support from it. If you don’t want the US to police/make war with your community you need to police it yourself. This has absolutely nothing to do with what Muslim moderates say to me. It has everything to do with what they do at home.
My personal take is this, most moderates would rather hate the US which is distant rather than deal with the fundamentalists which are close. The problem is that the fundamentalists are taking war to the Americans but America will then be forced to bring war back to the fundamentalists which live in and gain support from the communities which the moderates did not defend.
“[A]ll Muslim societies have gone through a period of introspection and self-analysis. What has emerged as the contemporary consensual position, articulated by political leaders, journalists, academics, Islamic organisations and ordinary individuals, is a severe and unambiguous rejection of Osama bin Laden, the Al Qaeda and bin Laden’s credo of inevitable conflict between Muslims and others.
The critique has been comprehensive: Osama is no religious scholar and has no authority to call for jehad; the violence perpetrated by him has no justification in any Islamic tract. He has served no Islamic cause; indeed with his vile conduct, he has harmed the fair name of Islam, has tarnished the image of Muslims and has set the stage for enduring violence and hatred between people and religions.”
Even if this is true, and I think it is a dramatic overstatement to call this a consensus of the Muslim community, he still forgot the ending. We unambiguously claim to reject bin Laden, but see no reason to take any further action to disrupt his policies or thwart his plans.
And that is the problem.
The US doesn’t need them to tell us they are horrified. The only reason they might want to tell the US that they are horrified is to distinguish themselves from those who speak in their name and offer horrific acts.
Why then doesn’t it go without saying? If we don’t need to hear it. You’re arguing against yourself here Sebastian.
Their critiques of bin Laden if they exist are quiet
This doesn’t strike me as a “quiet” critique:
It’s rather explicit and clear and was published for the world to see.
The problem is that the fundamentalists are taking war to the Americans but America will then be forced to bring war back to the fundamentalists which live in and gain support from the communities which the moderates did not defend.
The problem is that the fundamentalists are supported by the authoritarian governments, not the moderates, and in the case of the worst of the lot, Saudi Arabia, the United States helps prop them up. For the moderates to beat the fundamentalists they first have to over throw the US-backed governments. But don’t let that interfere with the contempt you hold for the moderates.
Even if this is true, and I think it is a dramatic overstatement to call this a consensus of the Muslim community,
based on what? the fact that a Muslim writer wrote it in a Muslim publication?
he still forgot the ending. We unambiguously claim to reject bin Laden, but see no reason to take any further action to disrupt his policies or thwart his plans.
Again, if the US is helpless to stop bin Laden, what do you expect these folks to do? Realistically. They’ve spoken out. What else do you demand?
The overstatement is in calling it a consensus.
“at most we are subjecting them to ordinary or by normal human standards sub-ordinary standards of suspicion considering the extraordinary circumstances of Muslims in Al Qaeda who like to blend in with the general Muslim population in order to kill us.”
This isn’t actually true, at least not if you mean ordinary in the sense of “rational and justified” rather than the sense of “how human beings have historically responded in these situations”. I know a fair bit about this. We officially authorize racial profiling, without any limits except a vague “don’t do anything unconstitutional” that makes no difference on the ground. We rounded up 1000-odd people after 9/11, held them incommunicado until the FBI cleared them even though there was a time limit imposed by Congress, did not rush the FBI process of clearing them, abused some of them, and deported many of them on any flimsy minor immigration violation we could find. As far as I know none of them were found to have any connection to terrorism. And then you have things like the Maher Arar case. I don’t think either is representative of our policies toward Muslim-Americans, but a lot of this stuff is secret, and we’ve never apologized or made any attempt to punish those responsible or take steps to make sure it didn’t happen again. And when you hear these horror stories, it’s hard to take your twelfth strip search, or being detained and questioned outside your apartment, as a mere inconvenience.
There has been some anti-Muslim violence. There is more anti-Muslim sentiment. I think it’s hard to explain the public’s very-difficult-to-shake belief that Iraq is behind 9/11–without some underlying belief that they’re all alike.
Compared to WWI or WW2 or many other countries, including oh, the entire Arab world, it’s mild. But I don’t like hearing how nice we’ve been and how they should be thankful.
That said, I cannot stand the sense of victimization that comes across in some of the articles Edward quotes. One doesn’t seem to distinguish the “anti-Muslim” alliance from the non-Muslim world. There is the usual focus on Israel as the root of all evil. And I really hope there is a better explanation of “not airing our dirty linen” than failing to act against bin Laden.
Are moderate Muslims more likely to be secular? I’ve always assumed that to be a big part of the problem. Religion is an organizing force, and liberal secular sorts do not possess a similar one–especially in societies without real political parties or a real free press.
Hell, the superior organization of religious, intolerant sorts is the reason that the gay marriage amendment passed the Massachusetts legislature even though a majority of the population supported gay marriage in the early polls. Not that it’s on the same scale, of course, just an illustration that organized religion is, well, ORGANIZED.
The Arab press, of course, is a huge part of the problem. I think Al Jazeera is fair and balanced compared to some of the government sponsored press.
Likewise, many Arab governments alternate between brutal repression of Islamic extremists, and placating them by blaming everything on the U.S. and Israel. And are so corrupt and incompetent that a lot of social services are provided only by mosques.
Assuming no one is advocating wholesale invasion of the middle east or collective punishment here, I am really less interested in defending or attacking moderate Muslims than in asking: is there anything we can do to help them become a force in their countries? How do we drive a wedge between Al Qaeda and the Muslim population?
One thing we do not do is turn on Israel, withdraw from Iraq, stop taking reasonable security precautions, and otherwise do what they tell us to. Another thing we do not do is ignore legitimate grievances and fears of the Muslim world because of a vague sense that we will be rewarding the terrorists. In the extreme cases this is obvious–will we not stop torturing prisoners in Abu Ghraib because Berg’s murderers demand it? But there are less obvious examples too.
And one thing we do is to make sure we are taking all possible steps in fighting terrorism that do not involve killing or imprisoning Muslims. This, we haven’t done.
It does not seem like hyperbole to say that the Muslim world is much more united against us than it was two years ago, and the West is much more divided than it was. That worries me, a whole lot.
“Again, if the US is helpless to stop bin Laden, what do you expect these folks to do? Realistically. They’ve spoken out. What else do you demand?”
Do you really understand so little about WHY the US cannot stop bin Laden?
Seriously?
Al Qaeda is successful at hiding primarily because the communities in which it hides are willing to let them hide there. It is successful because moderate groups do not resist them.
You are asking precisely the wrong question. If there were really a Muslim consensus against Al Qaeda the terrorist group would have huge trouble finding mosques to hide weapons in, communities to hide its agents in, places to get supplies from, etc. etc.
Mere words are almost never enough. It is a common myth that they are. Words combined with the willingness to act are what changes things. Sometimes you are lucky enough to not have to act–the show of willingness is enough. But it isn’t just the words that change things. And so far all you have shown me are words. And frankly there aren’t even many of those compared to the billion+ population of the Muslim world.
I would be much more concerned with Muslim perception of U.S. action vis a vis the Palestinians if the Arab and Muslim nations themselves were even a little bit concerned with truly helping the Palestinans, rather than simply using them as a cudgel with which to beat Westerners and Jews, or encouraging their youth to blow themselves and Israeli civilians up. But they aren’t, as they’ve amply demonstrated time and again.
I would be much more concerned with Muslim perception of U.S. action vis a vis the Palestinians if the Arab and Muslim nations themselves were even a little bit concerned with truly helping the Palestinans, rather than simply using them as a cudgel with which to beat Westerners and Jews, or encouraging their youth to blow themselves and Israeli civilians up.
You’ve identified a symptom and misdiagnosed it as a cause.
So long as the US isn’t seen as an honest broker in this region, we really shouldn’t be surprised to see extremism.
Damn those moderate Muslims! Cowards! A pox on their heads!
A collection of Middle Eastern journalists’ reactions to the Berg murder can be found via the Guardian. Generally speaking, it does note those journalists and papers prepared to show their public revulsion at and/or disapproval of this particular case.
I wasn’t commenting on it as related to the larger problem Edward speaks of (although I have issues with that that I’m not inclined to discuss at the moment). Just something that stood out for me. The Arab states, by and large, don’t give a rat’s behind about the Palestinians except to the degree they can use them as a political tool; therefore, how they perceive — or claim to perceive — our treatment of them really doesn’t matter to me.
Interestingly enough, Jordan has absorbed hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees, depsite the instability they’ve caused.
It’s difficult to discuss the central question here without going into the specifics, which can each take more inches of blogtype than any of us has time to invest, I’m sure, but I want to try and bring this back to the reason I posted this:
What does it mean that moderate Muslims are not protesting the terrorists enough for many Americans? And if that’s true, why is it true?
I’m locked in a seemingly endless debate with some folks about why it’s important to distinguish between the Muslims who commit or support terrorism and those who are no more involved than I am in an IRA bombing. (I mean I never did anything to curb the IRA, personally I mean. Am I guilty of their crimes? Oh, if asked, of course I’d say the IRA is wrong, but those are mere words. I’ve never backed them up with actions. Whatever that would mean.)
One topic that never ceases to arise in that debate, when I ask folks to tone down the generalizations, is how by not being part of the solution, the moderates ARE part of the problem.
But let’s get down to the nuts and bolts of what that means. By “moderate Muslims” we generally do mean those who, given a choice, would prefer democracy over whatever government they currently have. The fact of the matter is that for the folks we’re really concerned with here (Middle Eastern Muslims and Saudis in particular) their current governments are a bigger roadblock to their ability to be an effective force in the war against terror than their religion is, but we can’t talk about that openly…too much to lose economically or strategically if we do that…so we do the next lamest thing…we hold the citizens (who in an authoritarian state don’t have the same freedoms we have, although we hold them to the same standard, as if they do) responsible. It’s a bit rich, if you ask me.
“What does it mean that moderate Muslims are not protesting the terrorists enough for many Americans?”
It means that they don’t hamper efforts to track down Al Qaeda. It means when they know of an Al Qaeda member they report him. It means when they find Al Qaeda trying to enter their communities they either resist or report the fact. It means they don’t let their sons join Al Qaeda. It means ESPECIALLY that they don’t give their money to Al Qaeda charities. It means they report when they think Al Qaeda has subverted a charity. It means they don’t preach hate in their mosques. It might mean for some of them that they issue fatwah’s against bin Laden. (Why can they get a fatwah against Rushdie but not bin Laden? Who has done more damage to Islam? Apparently Rushdie!) It means they shout down clerics who preach intifada or jihad.
I don’t give a damn about ‘protesting’. The Arab world is wonderful at posturing. Show me action. Besides there is a lingering doubt in my mind if ‘moderates’ are as plentiful as we thought.
I think it’s as simple as showing the moderates that they will be protected if they stick their necks out.
Problem is, as Edward points out, may of the liberals in these countries are thrown in jail for speaking their minds in other respects, so perhaps they don’t have a lot of confidence that their government will have their backs.
I wonder if these regimes have the equivalents or witness protection programs? I assume the US offers rewards as well – is there a process by which gov’ts in Muslim regimes pledge to offer protection, and that’s connected with, say, asylum and being totally set for life in Key West?
All of those things would be a bit more realistic if the governments weren’t backing up the fundamentalists Sebastian. Moderates in Saudi Arabia, for example, get thrown in jail regularly for doing the mildest things on your list.
dammit asdf…how quickly do you type? 🙂
fast.
by the way, I’ve been thinking.
We say a lot that this is a war of ideas.
Yet the only notable public figure I’ve seen actually express actual ideas beyond bland pronouncements that could well be found in any Arab constitution has been Bill Clinton, in his speech at Doha from January.
I mean, it’s great to say “democracy is awesome” every once in a while, but it only gets you so far. And I don’t think Kerry and Biden, who have made similarly vapid statements as well as vaguely wistful calls for international support or whatever, have distinguished themselves on this score either.
The merit of Clinton’s speech, aside from its content, was that he was actually addressing the Arab world.
Everyone else is engaging in the foreign policy equivalent of a circle jerk.
Thoughts?
“Thoughts?”
I thought that it was a damn good speech.
Yes, I either remember those posts of yours or imagined that I remember them.
My point was not so much about Clinton as it was about non-Clinton.
Today we are witnessing positive, constructive asdf rather than embittered, depressed praktike.
So I have actual ideas to share rather than disconnected snarks and idle expressions of gloom.
Anyway, so my point is mainly that somebody needs to be going and giving lots of good speeches in the Arab world that actually engage in some serious straight talk about human rights, responsibility, etc.
I can see how there might be some reluctance for, say, Colin Powell to start talking smack on Arab leaders, but what if a high-profile Senator started making the rounds? Or former President Bush? He’s got that whole 1989 thing going for him. Or Carter? He’s super super nice. Or Ford, the man behind the Helsinki accords? Or Wes Clark, liberator of Muslims in Kosovo? We should be utilizing all of these guys as much as possible.
Similarly, read this Wes Clark article, which lays out what I think are some important distinctions between Eastern Europe in the 80s and the Middle East today.
I bet you didn’t know I B Moderate Muslim is an anagram for I Am Medium Lobster.
Thou art unmasked.
“All of those things would be a bit more realistic if the governments weren’t backing up the fundamentalists Sebastian. Moderates in Saudi Arabia, for example, get thrown in jail regularly for doing the mildest things on your list.”
Ok, Edward I give. You must be totally right. There isn’t a damn thing moderate Muslims can do. They are helpless children, unable to protect themselves. They can’t do anything without the protection of the United States. We are the reason their lives suck. We are the reason that there isn’t a single functioning government in the entire Arab world. They are obviously completely unable to do anything other than whisper about how they really don’t like Al Qaeda. They can’t stand up for their own religion. They can’t preach against the inevitable power of bin Laden’s power from Allah. All they can do is sit back and hope that America is able to tell them apart from their more fundamentalist brothers.
Sheesh, who is being racist? The one who thinks they are adult enough to act or the one who thinks they are helpless? People have been oppressed for centuries. Some of them resist. There is probably no better time in the history of the world to be someone who wants to resist a despotic government.
You are right about one thing though. They can’t trust the West for help.
Especially not with people like you in charge of Europe.
Edward, your second link, the one to Subhan, is busted. Some random late night thoughts…
Perception seems like such a polite word. In fact, many of these “perceptions” of us in the Muslim world are falsehoods and lies. And that raises questions. Why are so many Muslims so ready to believe this propaganda without critical thought and without question? I’m sure much of this has to do with repressive governments and the lack of free press and speech. But is there something else at play? Is it the Jews? Saudi Arabia is certainly a problem and House of Saud is certainly corrupt. But at least they’re not Wahhabis, which would be worse. We can’t do much directly against the Saudis anyway since we’d messing with the birthplace of Islam.
Kaykel wrote an interesting paragraph: “Simply put, the moderates in the last half a century have been progressively relegated to the intellectual and political margins of Islamic society by a new breed of Islamic political activists – otherwise known as Salafi or Wahhabi.” In effect, he’s saying that much of Islam has been indeed been hijacked by the fundamentalists.
Other questions arise. How many moderates are out there, and how does that compare to the more fundamentalist and militant wings? How many members of al Qaeda are there? How many are al Qaeda sympathizers who are providing tacit aid and comfort? How come there are no moderate religious leaders that are household names? Why hasn’t there been a Ghandi, an MLK or a Martin Luther in the last century who can usher Muslims into a new era? Where is that leader today? How come so many speaking out are women, who have virtually zero power in this male-dominated religion? I’ve written three or four posts identifying Muslims who are willing to stand up and speak out, and they’re all females! Where are the moderate men? Why are outfits like CAIR focusing their energies on trawling for civil rights “abuses” instead of actively helping us identify and get rid of al Qaeda members and co-conspirators?
I’m sure many in the Muslim world view the U.S. with hostility. But it still seems like a choice must be made. Do Muslims side with the bin Ladens of the world and allow their faith to be trumped by extremism, or do they reject him and carve out their own path.
It’s said that properly setting expectations is the most important thing in ensuring satisfaction with the end result*.
They’ve spoken out. What else do you demand?
Edward, now that you (and those Muslims you’ve quoted) have properly set my expectations as to what assistance they’ll offer, I expect nothing.
*I’ll note, before others do, that we set expectations pretty high about, well, many things. But, this is a discussion about what is expected from moderate Muslims.
“From Juan Cole:
Muslim Authorities Condemn Berg Killing
Muslim authorities at al-Azhar Seminary, the preeminent center of learning for Sunni Islam, vehemently condemned the brutal murder of Nick Berg by terrorists in Iraq, according to Sobhy Mujahid.
‘ “Islam respects the human being, dead or alive, and cutting off the American’s head was an act of mutilation forbidden by Islam,” [said] Ibrahim Al-Fayoumi, a member of Al-Azhar’s Islamic Research Academy . . . ‘
Sobhi adds, ‘ Mahmoud Emara, another member of the Academy [said] “The mutilation even of enemies is rejected by Islam. A mistake could not justify another . . . ” The scholar cited the respect Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) had paid to bodies in the battle of Badr when he ordered the burial of the dead irrespective of their religion. The Prophet urged his Companions on the day of Badr to be kind to their captives and treat them with clemency. ‘
These scholars are major voices of the Muslim mainstream. They should be listened to on such matters.
Even the much more radical Lebanese Shiite Hizbullah (Hezbollah), according to the Sydney Morning Herald, ‘ harshly criticised the beheading and questioned the timing of a “horrible” act which drove the torture of Iraqi prisoners by US-led forces from the headlines. “Hezbollah denounces this horrible act which does an immense wrong to Islam and Muslims by a group which falsely pretends to follow the precepts of the religion of pardon and essential human values,” the party said in a statement. ‘ (Hizbullah, as Shiites, has nothing but contempt for the Sunni radical Zarqawi).
It adds, ‘Ezzedine Salim, this month’s chief of the Iraq Governing Council, insisted that “decapitations and mutilations are unacceptable and have nothing to do with Islam”. ‘
Even the conservative and fundamentalist religious leaders in Iraq expressed the same sentiments.
Samir Haddad quotes Muthanna al-Dhari, secretary general of the Board of Muslim Clergy (a hardline Sunni organization that in the past has had members who stockpiled arms in mosques; it was a major mediating force at Fallujah). Al-Dhari ‘ strongly denounced the killing, saying it runs counter to the teachings of Islam and “does disservice to our religion and our cause.” The Sunni scholar stressed this is a condemned operation whether carried out by Iraqis or non-Iraqis and whether the slain was a civilian or a military personnel. “Even if he was a military personnel he should be treated as a prisoner who, according to Shari’ah, must not be killed,” he told IslamOnline.net. Deputy Head of the Islamic Party Iyaad Samarrai said the abhorrent treatment of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. soldiers should never give an excuse for treating U.S. prisoners the same way. “This is absolutely wrong,” he told IOL, asserting that “Islam does prohibit the killing or the maltreatment of prisoners.” Samarrai said such acts harm the interest of the Iraqi people and their cause to end the U.S.-led occupation.
We’ll be hearing for years from the talking heads on US cable news about how the Muslim world failed to condemn what was done to Berg. It would be as though a set of high-ranking cardinals in the Vatican condemned something unreservedly and then people kept saying the Church remained silent.
posted by Juan Cole at 5/13/2004 06:44:19 AM”
Fabius, if one follows Cole’s link, it’s interesting to note where he decided to end one quote and put an ellipsis:
Interestingly enough, Jordan has absorbed hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees, depsite the instability they’ve caused.
For some reason, all I can think of is a Simpsons moment, with Rod Flanders praying: ” . . . and thank You for sending Lisa to save us from the moth you sent us.”
Bird Dog asks why so many Muslims are willing to believe propaganda. I can’t really speak to the question how many do believe it, but about those who do: I spent a fair amount of time in various parts of the middle east, and for various reasons ended up talking to a lot of people who are neither wealthy nor part of the intelligentsia. Many of them seemed to think that the US was not just very powerful, which of course it is, but virtually omnipotent. They were willing to entertain the idea that the US was responsible for virtually everything that happened, including (in one particularly startling case) an earthquake. I think it’s hard to understand this view if you don’t really think not just about America’s political and military power, but about its technical achievements, and the effects they are having on the traditional societies of the middle east. There are all these things that we can make — cell phones, TVs, you name it — which as of when I was there (15-20 years ago) could not have been made in any Arab country, and which, as far as the people I talked to were concerned, might as well have been made by elves or fairies with inscrutable powers as by human beings. To people living in places where electricity has arrived within living memory, if it has arrived at all, the things we do are not comprehensible as the result of ordinary human endeavor. Of course, they don’t actually believe that we ARE elves or fairies with magical powers; but they do credit us with the ability to do all sorts of things that they can’t imagine how we do, and they do so for good reasons. Couple this with two further facts — that we have, in fact, done quite a few things in that region covertly, and that in my experience lots of people tend to prefer to explain things as intentional rather than as the result of carelessness or incompetence — and you have a situation in which all sorts of things can be believed.
It’s also important not to underestimate the effects of living in a repressive regime, especially on people who have no exposure to liberal democracies. At one point in my travels I encountered people who were opposed to their government, and had joined a Marxist group in order to do so. I had a series of long arguments with them about this, in the course of which it became clear not only that they had absolutely no idea what Marx had actually said (this in a country in which reading Marx was totally illegal), but that they did not believe that I did either, since I lived in the US, which was not a Marxist country. (“They only let you read the American Marx”, they said, and just would not believe that I had not only read but actually taught the real Marx.) And as far as I could tell, this wasn’t about their trust in me in particular, but about their inability to imagine a world in which, say, Marx’s works were generally available even though the government was not Marxist. Likewise, most people in non-democratic countries assume that what they read in the newspapers is untrustworthy; this leads to a situation in which people choose their overarching beliefs first, and then believe those publications that support those beliefs, rather than the other way around. And again, the alternative is literally unimaginable to them.
And what overarching beliefs do they choose? Here I think it’s crucial to see that one of the major problems in the middle east is a sense of profound cultural humiliation in the face of the west. And it’s not just caused by e.g. invasions, but (as noted earlier) by technology. The overwhelming majority of the people I talked to badly wanted things like TVs. As I said, these were things that at that time no Arab country could produce itself. And they had huge effects on Arab society: think here not just of the effects of watching western TV, but of the effects on family life of acquiring a washing machine. Western technology has been profoundly destabilizing to daily life in Arab society, and it is also a source of deep humiliation. (Remember that after 9/11, one response from Arabs in the middle east was doubt that Arabs could have pulled it off. That was revealing.) I think it takes a lot of self-confidence to resist the twin temptations of (a) deciding to reject Arab village life as backward, and becoming superficially ‘Westernized’, and (b) deciding to reject the West and all its works, in favor of what I take to be the right approach: taking what’s good from us and rejecting what’s bad. Very few of the people I met had this sort of self-confidence.
I’d like to make your comment its own post if you don’t mind Hilzoy.
e
Not at all. I’m flattered.
Is the encircling of the Islamic world the result of an “anti-Muslim alliance” or a habit of attacking non-Muslim neighbors?
Even excepting Israel, Muslims were engaged in violent conflicts with non-Muslims long before September 11th in Kashmir, Sudan, Nigeria, Indonesia…the list goes on.
If Muslims find themselves, in the words of Akbar Ahmed, “in confrontation with all of the major world religions: Judaism (in the Middle East), Christianity (in the Balkans, Chechnya, Nigeria, Sudan and sporadically in the Philippines and Indonesia), Hinduism (in South Asia) — and even Buddhism, after the Taliban blew up the statues in Bamiyan,” what is the more logical explanation for the violence: an anti-Muslim alliance or Muslim difficulty getting along with non-Muslim neighbors? The “introspection and self-analysis” Taufiq Subhan cites ought have led them to consider the possibility that the problem is with themselves rather than everybody else.
I would amend that definition to read, “those who respect the rights of non-Muslims to life, religious freedom and territorial integrity”.