http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=813660 Muslims and the West The need to speak up Oct 11th 2001 The Economist Faith cannot flourish without tolerance. Some extremist Islamists threaten to destroy both AMERICA and its allies are right to emphasise that their struggle against Osama bin Laden and his supporters is not a war against Islam. They must keep on saying it, not only because the claim is expedient—the fight will be much more difficult to win without the backing of moderate Muslims—but also because it is true. The West has no quarrel with Islam. The West is secular, but this does not mean that it frowns upon religion in general, or on any religion in particular. Quite the opposite: the West values and protects all manner of religious belief. Millions of Muslims live in the West, and their right to worship as they see fit is a freedom which the allies ranged against al-Qaeda recognise as second to none. In other words, the West can live in peace with Islam. What is unclear is whether Islam can live in peace with the West. Many Muslims in many parts of the world flatly say it cannot. The anti-western and specifically anti-American rage that animates the most militant strands of Muslim fundamentalism brooks no compromise. In his video broadcast this week Mr bin Laden took care to link the attacks on the United States with American support for Israel and the American military presence in Saudi Arabia, doubtless intending to suggest that, if those grievances were addressed, amity might prevail between Islam and the Great Satan. But if that is how you see the world, amity seems unlikely. Militant Islam despises the West not for what it does but for what it is. If American “imperialism” were the principal bone of contention, why should the United States be so much more despised than the Soviet Union ever was, or than Russia still is, despite the fact that Russia rules over millions of Muslims who would rather not be its subjects? Nope, not America, you might argue, had “imperial” ambitions in the Middle East even after independent states had been created in the region: America crushed those ideas by humiliating Britain and France during the Suez crisis of 1956. Israel notwithstanding, America's supposed crimes of foreign policy in the region are utterly incommensurate with the hatred directed against it. The truth is, America is despised mainly for its success; for the appealing and, critics would say, corrupting alternative it presents to a traditional Islamic way of life; and for the humiliation which many Muslims feel when they consider the comparative failure, in material terms, of their once-mighty civilisation. It helps Arab governments no doubt to blame that failure on outsiders. Plenty of western intellectuals are happy to agree that the economic plight of North Africa and the Middle East is more to do with American oppression than with its real, domestic, causes. (Causes that do not include Islam, by the way: blame decades of socialism followed by statism, corruption and incompetence.) Yet to think this way—to see the West as an infidel oppressor and capitalist exploiter, rather than as a partner with whom a fruitful friendship is possible—is to rule out all possibility of peaceful coexistence. Arab leaders and their western apologists should reflect on that. Still, Muslims who think the West must be fought and defeated are not going to be bombed into changing their minds, that's for sure. And they are probably not going to be talked into changing their minds by outsiders. They themselves must examine their own history, and that of the West, if they are to see how an accommodation might be reached. Common ground will be hard to find unless most Muslims can deplore, in their hearts, apologies of any kind, active or passive, for the killings of September 11th. On the other hand, if the fundamentalist view of the West gains ground, people in the West might conceivably be bombed into changing their minds—that is, into agreeing with Mr bin Laden that this is a war of civilisations that must be fought and won. A horrifying thought. Say it loud In all this, a particular responsibility falls on Muslims in the West. Most such Muslims, and nearly all of their leaders, have denounced the acts of September 11th in plain words. At the same time, they have spoken of their concerns for non-Taliban Muslims as the military actions against Afghanistan continue. That too is as it should be. But some Muslims in the West, a loud and therefore disproportionately audible minority, continue to speak for the fundamentalists, explaining and even trying to justify the crimes of September 11th. It is crucial that the moderate Muslim majority deplores those views out loud, and publicly repudiates the people who espouse them. Any idea that loyalty to brothers in the faith must inhibit such criticism should be rejected. Mr bin Laden and his defenders are not championing Islam, they are defaming it. And without the tolerance that the terrorists seek to smash, no faith can hope to flourish in peace in this world.
MrSpur, I cannot believe it, but thanks for posting that. Although he does gloss over the West's mistakes in the region, he presents an important perspective. While the West is being asked to expend energies on introspection, the Muslims in the middle and far east should do the same.
I though and considered for a while whether or not to even reply to your posts, but ignorance must be answered. http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,564960,00.html Have you tried to visit any Islamic websites or news sources to actually CONFIRM that this has not happened. I watch local and national news and have seen several instances of Muslims speaking out against these acts and issuing their statements. What TV do you watch, radio do you listen to, and news do you read?
Guess I missed something, but what is ignorant about the article above? In fact, it seems remarkably similar to the good one that you reference.
Actually, my declaration of ignorance was directed towards the author of this thread who has repeatedly showed great ignorance on this BBS by his postings of racist, uncivilized, uneducated, anti-Islamic, and disrespectful views of women. Sorry, I should have clarified this. The article itself is also not completely accurate. I have heard many American news outlets and propagandistic views of how the Islamic world hates the 'success' of the West and are jealous of our prosperity. I hardly think that 1.4 billion people hate rich people and want to kill them. It is more likely a result of much more complicated reasons that have to do more with decades of political misdirections that have come from both the West's exploitation of the Middle East as well as our foreign policies which do not always support justice, but rather American interests, along with the corruption of their own leaders in nearly all coutries. Of course most of these oppressive regimes are backed by, you guessed it, us. I really believe it is ridiculous to think that the entire Islamic world is mad at us and in addition to this absurdity, they are mad because we are prosperous and they are not.
People are quick to lay all the blame on the U.S., but a lot of this could be solved if the Middle East could take care of themselves better. There are so many countries over there fighting with each other, not policing each other, and doing crazy things that when the U.S. does one thing over there they blame them like they're the root of all evil. The bottomline is that they put themselves in a lot of the situations that they are in. If they stopped and considered the consequences of their action they wouldn't be quick to blame the U.S. out of one side of their mouths, while trying to get their support out of the other side of their mouths.
One of the most significant problems is extreme poverty and oppression mixed with a lack of education in the middle east. I saw a professor from a university in Pakistan on TV the other night who said that because of the repeated military coups in Pakistan, the public school system has collapsed. Now, the only schools are Islamic seminaries paid for by fundamentalist Muslim groups. They exclude women and don't teach anything but the Koran. In his words, they are preparing children "for the 11th century, but not for the 21st." The fact is that these are horribly impoverished people who have been exploited because of their lack of education and the richness of thier soil. It isn't just the US who has created the problems. Every country in the world and their own leaders have ravaged their land and continued the impoverished conditions. As a way to avoid the blame, many leaders place it on the US and its policies. We are certainly not blameless because we do further our own interests there with little regard for the human rights atrocities that happen every day. However, to blame ONLY the US would not only be near-sighted, it would be incorrect. US policy in the region has to change. We can't simply placate Israel and ignore the problems of the Islamic world. In Afghanistan, many of our own efforts have come back to bite us. We do reap what we sow. We have to have a more progressive attitude towards the rest of the world. American isolationism is a dangerous mistake and this is just one of the many examples of it. Recently, a former ambassador to Saudi Arabia (an older Anglo man) was on local TV. He said that when he returned to the US after serving in Saudi and Oman for 10 years, he was appalled at the lack of knowlege our country has of other cultures and our unwillingness to learn. A recent study found that 1 in 5 people can't point out the United States on a map of the world, let alone some country halfway across the globe. We have to think bigger, not smaller or we'll be doomed to repeat these types of incidents again and again.
Hey RocketScientist, which came first: the chicken or the egg? Aside from propping up despotic governments, what evil have we really done in the ME? Invade Iraq? He invaded another country, committed hundreds of war crimes in that conflict, and threatened the world's oil supply. Support Israel? Tell the Palestinians to take the next deal the Israelis offer and agree to let Israel exist and everything will be fine. Prop up despotic governments that aren't anti-western? That is the only 'evil' I can think of. But that's why I ask which came first. We prop up unpopular governments because we don't want a hostile 'democracy' to exist in their stead. The 'democracy' would be hostile because they tend to hate us. Of course, propping up the despots makes them hate us even more, and why wouldn't it, because we won't let them have a representative govt? But we don't want their govts to be representative because they would be hostile because they hate us, and round, and round, and round we go... Of course, if they didn't hate us and wouldn't form hostile governments then we'd help them develop those democracies, their markets, etc. But they do, so we won't... So which came first, the chicken or the egg?
And your declaration of ignorance would be wrong, but if it helps your ego, please feel free to heap on that self-righteous indignation of yours. Way to go, dude! Anyways, I am anti-Taliban, not anti-Islamic, but if you must criticize me for making broad generalizations with broad generalizations of your own, sobeit. I didn't realize The Economist was such a poor journal, I suppose I should just subscribe to your writings instead. The article itself acknowledges that there have been condemnations by Muslims in the West of the attacks, but argues that there has not been enough condemnation of the more militant anti-American rumblings throughout Muslim nations.
