|
Global Mail Canada – July 30, 2004
Such arrogance: You can't pigeonhole 1.2 billion Muslims
By SHEEMA KHAN
The mass murder of 9/11 jolted Americans to the reality that ignorance of their government's foreign policy is not bliss. Some asked, "Why do the terrorists hate us?" Others blithely answered, "Because we love freedom." How to manage it? Call in Madison Avenue to "sell" America to skeptical Muslims around the world. After all, image is everything. The campaign failed miserably, especially once it was aided and abetted by the invasion of Iraq.
The 9/11 commission report is the latest study to examine the U.S. response to threats posed by "Islamist terrorism." Its authors point out that military excursions, while important, will be secondary to the ideological battle against the extremist interpretations of Islam espoused by al-Qaeda and its ilk.
It's not that Muslims find such interpretations appealing, but the genius of Osama bin Laden has been his ability to speak forcefully to the anger and humiliation felt toward the United States for its intervention in their affairs.
So how should America get involved in the war of ideas?
According to the commission, by doing a better job of selling American values to Muslims worldwide through mass media and academic/cultural exchanges. Incredibly, the commission's report is silent on educating Americans about Islam.
The report characterizes the roots of al-Qaeda's ideology as "a long tradition of extreme intolerance within a minority strain of Islam," suggesting that the faith has always been a source for extremism. It states that the enemy is not Islam, but "Islamism" -- a nebulous term that defies exact definition. The distinction between Islam and Islamism will be lost on most people, thus providing ample opportunity for exploitation by Islamophobes. On Tuesday, Daniel Pipes did just that on this page.
The report points out the need for reformation within the Muslim world. Throughout the 20th century, calls were made for Islamic reformation. During their imperial dominance, both Britain and France took great interest in the inner workings of Muslim institutions and authority, seeking to influence them to their advantage. This interest was understandable, given that both empires sought to exert control over large numbers of Muslims.
Since 9/11, the call has been made with renewed vigor. The argument is deceptively simple: The prime reason for violence in the name of Islam is that Islam has not changed since its inception. To eliminate the threat of terror, Islam must modernize itself so its adherents can join the ranks of the "civilized."
There are two problems with this approach, often presented by people like Mr. Pipes.
The first is that it ignores centuries of solid scholarship within Islam itself that seeks to ensure that principles of the faith are able to address issues of modernity. We often hear that Islam divides the world into the "House of Islam," where Muslims dominate, and the "House of War," where Muslims want to dominate.
But too infrequently do we hear about Muslim scholars who have rejected this binary world view, arguing, instead, that a genuine Islamic vision supports a global co-operative model rather than a unilateral state-centric one. Such scholarship sits squarely in the mainstream of Islam.
This leads to the second problem. The assumption underlying the argument for reformation is that, once "reformed," the new Islamic outlook will be subservient to the wishes of the civilized West. Yet sovereign nations make sovereign decisions, such as refusing to join in unjust wars and doing what is best for their own economies rather than what is best for an alien power.
Given the stakes, it seems improbable that the United States will remain a bystander in the reformation efforts.
Already, the Rand Corp. has issued a report on ways to engineer Islamic reform by advocating the support of secularists, even though such leaders are often autocratic and repressive, while using traditionalists to keep the extremists in check.
This study tries to pigeonhole 1.2 billion Muslims into distinct groups based on their degree of Islamic practice and interpretation of key Islamic texts. The tone of this reductionist analysis is arrogant, making cultural domination its final goal.
Positions of this sort lead Muslims to one conclusion: The call for reformation is not genuine. It has at its heart a vision of Muslims as consumers, not producers; of Muslim nations as liege states rather than equal partners.
|
