Light a single candle

by Ted on August 27, 2004

A point that’s possibly worth reiterating:

The Islamic world has ample reasons for legitimate criticism. Anti-Semitism, sexism, lack of democracy, lack of opportunity, nurturing of terrorism… these are sad realities, not the hallucinations of right-wingers. Anger and criticism are appropriate, but our approach has to start with the assumption that Muslims are not going away. Short of deliberate genocide, there’s no way forward in the long run except for “hearts and minds.”

There is much, much more to say about this. Luckily, an organization called Americans for Informed Democracy is taking a few steps in this direction. They’re putting on a series of thirty events in September and October on the subject of US-Islamic world relations.

The series will finish on October 12 with six “Face to Face” videoconference dialogues between young leaders at six universities in the U.S. and six in the Muslim world, including in Egypt, Indonesia, Lebanon, Morocco, Pakistan, and Turkey.

The series is intended to commemorate the three-year anniversary of the September 11 attacks with a call to action out of the ashes of tragedy. As you know, the recently released report by the 9/11 Commission stressed that the U.S. must “act aggressively to define itself in the Islamic world” and to share America’s “vision of opportunity and hope.” We hope that our efforts can help to build understanding between non-Muslims and Muslims in the U.S. and then to extend that understanding to the relationship between the U.S. and the Muslim world.

No one initiative like this will change history. But what other option is there, really?

{ 38 comments }

1

matt weiner 08.27.04 at 6:10 pm

they’re not going away
I take it you mean that Muslims aren’t going away? In the long run, my hope is that the problems themselves will go away…

2

Tom Grey - Liberty Dad 08.27.04 at 6:30 pm

A World Without Dictators

Muslims must learn to live with Human Rights respecting governments. NOT an easy or quick process.

There is the beginning of explicit recognition that we are in a Moral Superiority War (not a culture war). All intellectually honest folk SHOULD be enraged at the press, my point #2 below.

http://tomgrey.motime.com/1093544824#329796
The 3 big issues the Kerry Lie brings up (Lies):
1) Kerry’s Lie mean he is unfit to be commander in chief; he will be sunk by the Swifties.

2) The press & academia has been enabling Kerry for years, covering up his lies. The PC beliefs of most press reporters, and their censorship of discussion & cover up of the facts, has been enabling Kerry’s Lie, and most in the press are still trying to. Bush-hate by the press is no excuse for a press cover-up.

3) Kerry’s Lie helped create Political Correctness: “ending the Vietnam war, now” as the morally superior position. This is the Kerry Lie sand that PC is built on, and it is now developing cracks.

What is worth fighting for, what is worth fighting against?
The evil commies deserved to be fought against;
Saddam deserved to be fought against.
To fight means to kill, die, and even kill some innocents. The real alternative is surrender.

The desire to avoid killing innocents is good. That’s what war crimes is all about. The evil guys don’t have war crimes trials. Christian based Civilization, Moral Human Rights Civilization, might allow war trial fears to stop us from winning.
Evil genocide in Cambodia was allowed because of such morals – it couldn’t be stopped without fighting.
Such morals are not superior.
Kerry will lose the “moral high ground”, and the election.

3

b.s. monkey 08.27.04 at 6:42 pm

that was quite a steaming pants-load you just dropped, there, Tom Grey – Liberty Dad!

just remember that, with our present (nominal) commander-in-chief, it is impossible to tell whether he is lying or too stupid to know better.

that is why the american people will soon be giving the village of Crawford back its idiot.

4

David W. 08.27.04 at 6:46 pm

If a report I heard on The World last night is any indication, rock ‘n roll in the form of Freddy Mercury and Queen is quite alive and well in Iran these days. Heck, even a chapbook of Eminem’s lyrics are on sale in at least one record store. Islamic fundamentalism doesn’t stand a chance against that kind of cultural firepower. At best, it will be a draw… :-)

5

Andrew Reeves 08.27.04 at 6:53 pm

David, the point you bring up makes clear that it’s fairly wrong-headed to think of “Islam” as a unitary entity. Yeah, in Iran after a generation of religious rule, the people want a government that is less religious. In Saudi Arabia, OTOH, after seventy years of religious rule, the vast majority of the people want a government that is *more* repressive and *more* religious. Perhaps it’s much more a question of local cultures than of religion.

6

aelph 08.27.04 at 6:59 pm

Can we really call the government of Saudi Arabia “religious”? Seems like your typical out-for-itself monarchy elite throwing around religious platitudes to me. I think the different between SA and Iran is that in SA they don’t think they’ve gotten to try the Islamic Utopia yet while in Iran they’ve tried it, and people are starting to figure out it doesn’t work.

7

abb1 08.27.04 at 7:04 pm

Hey, Tom, what do they prescribe for paranoid schizophrenia over in Slovakia these days?

Click here and start your online therapy right now.

8

Ophelia Benson 08.27.04 at 7:14 pm

I think one other option might be to stop talking about things like ‘the Muslim world.’ We don’t talk about the Christian world, after all, so why do we talk about the Muslim world? Secularists who live in that ‘world’ wonder the same thing – see the interview by Maryam Namazie at B&W for example.

To put it another way, ‘Muslims’ aren’t going away, no, but some could for instance stop being Muslims and others could decide to separate their religion from their world, so to speak. In short, the ‘Muslim’ world could become secular. I don’t think it’s helpful for people outside that world to call it the Muslim world, thereby reinforcing the idea that that’s a permanent condition, an essence if you like.

9

Steve 08.27.04 at 7:19 pm

As you know, the recently released report by the 9/11 Commission stressed that the U.S. must “act aggressively to define itself in the Islamic world” and to share America’s “vision of opportunity and hope.” We hope that our efforts can help to build understanding between non-Muslims and Muslims in the U.S. and then to extend that understanding to the relationship between the U.S. and the Muslim world.

While this sounds like a very worthy project, they might want to reconsider the above passage. I would submit that “sharing America’s ‘vision of opportunity and hope'” and “build[ing] understanding” are not exactly the same thing. This seems to veer dangerously close to Tom Friedman territory: “Once they know what we’re really like, they’ll finally realize that they should strive to be more like us.”

10

limberwulf 08.27.04 at 8:01 pm

I agree with Ophelia on this, the “Muslim World” is a misnomer, people are people no matter where you go. The Muslim faith need not disappear, not that it would be possible anyway, to change the suppressive actions of the current Muslim societies. Throughout history, religions of all shapes and sizes have fallen into corruption when said religion became the law. Theocracy is a danger not only to freedom of those who do not wish to follow a certain religion, but to the foundations of the religion itself. Many things in the Christian world have been massively corrupted by its use to gain power rather than a path of faith. I am not interested in the downfall of Islam, but rather in the rediscovery of it, much like what happened with the Protestant movement in Christianity, a move that reached its end in the rediscovery of the idea of free will and of seperation of church and state. The founding fathers of America called for seperation of church and state to protect the people’s freedom to choose their faith, and to protect the faith itself from the corruption inherent in power seekers that slways eventually infiltrate governments. The best thing that could happen to the Muslim faith would be for the Muslim thocracies to fall apart, and to have the followers of Islam follow by choice and seek their own answers, rather than using government as an executive arm.

11

Neil Sinhababu 08.27.04 at 8:04 pm

There was a brilliant article by Wesley Clark in the Washington Monthly that addressed the issue of how we can most effectively change the Middle east. Several strategies like this one were raised.

12

David Sucher 08.27.04 at 8:28 pm

Excellent point, Ophelia.
How we name things, how we refer to people, creates a powerful frame-of-reference for thinking about them.

But as a practical matter, if not “the Muslim world,” then what term would you suggest? “The world formerly known as ‘the Muslim world’ the Muslim world’ ” ?

13

abb1 08.27.04 at 8:39 pm

I think one other option might be to stop talking about things like ‘the Muslim world.’ We don’t talk about the Christian world, after all, so why do we talk about the Muslim world?

That’s right – we don’t talk about “the Christian world” or “the Muslim world”, but others do.

They praise their Judeo-Christian world and condemn the Islamofascist world while their antipodes glorify the world of the true believers and denounce the world of infidels and crusaders.

If you really want to level “legitimate criticism” at a group of a billion people, why not start with one group where you are a member? Otherwise it does sound a bit like a hallucination of right-wingers…

14

jdw 08.27.04 at 8:54 pm

“But as a practical matter, if not “the Muslim world,” then what term would you suggest? “The world formerly known as ‘the Muslim world’ the Muslim world’ ” ?”

How bout what we mean? When somebody says “the Muslim World”, it’s usually pretty safe to assume that they’re not talking about Africa, Bosnia, former Soviet republics, Indonesia… they mean “Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan and the Palestinians.” And I think Pakistan only merits inclusion because they’ve got nukes.

“The Muslim World” means Arabs, if and if you point out that Syria and Iran aren’t technically Arab, I’ll point out that no one who uses the phrase “the Muslim World” knows or cares.

15

Matt Weiner 08.27.04 at 9:00 pm

Limberwulf wrote:
the Protestant movement in Christianity, a move that reached its end in the rediscovery of the idea of free will….

I’m not a Christian, I wasn’t raised Christian, and I don’t know much about the different denominations of Christianity, but this strikes me as odd. The Protestant movement produced Calvinism, with its idea of predestination, whereas the Catholic church (I’m pretty sure) in its official theology cites free will as the answer to why there was evil in the worlds (i.e. God creates us with free will, which we sometimes misuse).

Anyway, I don’t find Ophelia’s point very helpful. Yes, some Muslims could stop being Muslim, but most won’t, and most (quite rightly) won’t welcome the suggestion that they should. So shouldn’t we want people who are Muslim to embrace a version of Islam that doesn’t lead to all the sad realities that Ted cites and that we (quite rightly) don’t like? If, as the folks you link seem to think, Iranians are all going to rush to repudiate Islam once the government falls, then fine–that’s their right–but I don’t think that that reaction would be universal in Northern Africa, the Persian Gulf, and Central Asia, and I don’t think we should count on it. Better to hope for a more moderate Islam that has managed to overcome the problems currently rife in those areas.

16

limberwulf 08.27.04 at 9:11 pm

Abb1 –
The issue here is that there are no groups of a billion people in the world. Lumping people into groups is what causes many of humanity’s problems in the first place. Yes, there are ignorant fools that think their faith is good and all others are evil. That applies to EVERY religion. There are narcisists that think they are right and everyone else is wrong, there are racists that think people of other races are inferior in some way. None of these things are new, and pointing fingers at the “bad groups” in your hometown isnt really any better than pointing fingers at the “bad groups” from somewhere else. The key is to quit assuming that people are simplistic enough to be labeled. When someone says they are a Christian, I do not automatically think right-wing facist. I do not think terrorist when I see someone of the Muslim faith, and I do not think idiot when I see someone who says they are Democrat or Republican.

The best thing we can do is to stop lumping people into groups and categories, accept some individual responsibility for our actions and thoughts, and realize that others are more than capable of rational thought, no matter what general “group” or “nationality” they may be associated with. In my limited travels to other countries, the educated and thoughtful people that I have seen do not lump all americans together, or even a sector of America. The less educated and thoughtful people that I have met tend to pass judgement on Americans as a group, and when I have pressed them for their basis of knowledge, it has invariably been what they have seen on American TV. By the same token, people here that I have spoken with that lump whole nations and religions into a simplisitc group of people tend to base their knowlegde on roughly the same thing, TV, or a book, or a news source. People cannot be described in sound bites and spoon-fed filtered reports. Labels are used because laziness is tempting, and labels are the lazy way of dealing with the world.

17

Barry Freed 08.27.04 at 9:23 pm

I suggest we employ the late and great historian of Islam Marshall Hodgson’s term, “Islamicate.” By this term Hodson intends to “…refer not directly to the religion, Islam, itself, but to the social and cultural complex historically associated with Islam and the Muslims, both among Muslims themselves and even when found among non-Muslims.” (The Venture of Islam, V 1, p. 59)

David W,
That brings to mind the Clash tune, “Rock the Casbah.”

Say Tom, you wouldn’t happen to know one Adrian Spidle?

18

naomi 08.27.04 at 9:27 pm

Does anyone honestly believe that there is such a thing as one ‘Muslim world’ where random Joe Muslim from New York thinks, behaves and lives the same as random Joe Muslim from Pakistan, or Morocco, or Indonesia, or Turkey, or Senegal, and so on and so forth?

What about nationalities, ethnicities, languages, cultures, local traditions – and then, social classes, education levels, job positions, etc. etc. all the things that differentiate people even within a given group?

How can there be one homogeneous ‘Muslim world’ if there’s not even such a thing as one average Joe Muslim (or, Abdul Muslim) that’s representative of a whole predominantly Muslim nation. There’s a lot of differences even within the so-called ‘Arab world’ itself, which at least is a more specific grouping, but hardly one homogeneous bloc either.

Islam is a religion, it may be one with a particularly powerful communal identity and universal aspiration, but it is not an ethnicity, or nation, or much less a world. No matter how the haters/paranoids and fundamentalists alike see it, obviously it’s convenient to both in different ways to see it like that.

19

naomi 08.27.04 at 9:41 pm

“The Muslim World” means Arabs

Try that line with a Muslim from Pakistan, or Indonesia, or Africa, or Bosnia. Or maybe not. I don’t think it’d be appreciated, especially if the inclusion or exclusion is based on some weird criteria as having nukes or not. Pakistan is not Arab. If you want to say Arab world, just say Arab world, not Muslim world. At least Arab world, insofar as generalisations go, is actually pointing to a geographical area with something in common.

20

Ophelia Benson 08.27.04 at 10:10 pm

Yup that’s my point. Lumping everyone together in a ‘Muslim world’ is just that – lumping. And it’s not even clear what it means. A geographical region? In that case there will be millions of exceptions. A mental world of all Muslims? But then the phrase doesn’t really fit with the way it’s being discussed, it seems to me.

“Yes, some Muslims could stop being Muslim, but most won’t, and most (quite rightly) won’t welcome the suggestion that they should.”

Most won’t. When?

And how do you know?

In other words, what do you mean ‘won’t’? Ever? In two hundred or two thousand years, if humans are still around, which seems doubtful? But if that’s what you mean, how can you possibly know that? Look how fast Europe has gone secular.

And there’s a difference between saying ‘could’ and saying ‘should’. I didn’t say should, I said could. And that’s what I meant, too – they could, and that’s one reason it seems odd to call it ‘the Muslim world’.

21

bob mcmanus 08.27.04 at 10:13 pm

“So shouldn’t we want people who are Muslim to embrace a version of Islam that doesn’t lead to all the sad realities”

If the goal is some kind of secular liberal pluralism, most religions have to tie themselves into knots trying to get there, and soon face the return of the repressed, as we are seeing in the US.

However, maybe we can fake it, and by the time Muslims realize that the Koran really can’t be reconciled with abortion and gay rights, the ones who still care will be marginalized. Meanwhile, someone tell me how to get rid of DeLay, Santorum, & Bush

22

Robin Green 08.28.04 at 12:04 am

If the goal is some kind of secular liberal pluralism, most religions have to tie themselves into knots trying to get there, and soon face the return of the repressed, as we are seeing in the US.

It’s an interesting question as to why the US is more religious than the UK.

Here’s a whacked out, off the wall, probably wrong, theory for ya: Is it possible that separation of church and state ironically has something to do with it? Is it possible that forbidding (ritualistic and ineffective) religious indoctrination in state schools in the US, drives some parents to perform their own more effective indoctrination, and/or send their children to sunday school or church to be indoctrinated – more often than in the UK?

Sorry, getting off a bit topic there. Still, would be interested to know what major factors drive religiousity in general in a population – Christian or Muslim or whatever – apart from having a theocratic or quasi-theocratic state like in Saudi Arabia.

23

Ophelia Benson 08.28.04 at 1:05 am

Not whacked out at all. Lots of people think there is indeed a connection between US separation of church and state and intense religiosity.

24

Randy McDonald 08.28.04 at 1:30 am

limburwulf:

I am not interested in the downfall of Islam, but rather in the rediscovery of it, much like what happened with the Protestant movement in Christianity, a move that reached its end in the rediscovery of the idea of free will and of seperation of church and state.

And in the process developed some rather interesting theocracies–Calvin’s Geneva was only a prototype.

25

tedsdad 08.28.04 at 2:01 am

every effort to bridge the gaps between cultures is one step forward.

Today, I was amazed that a foreign exchange student working for me for the summer was excited because he had never had a chinese meal – in all his life. It was a culteral explosion considering the breadth of employees we have in our small business. Before he returns to the culterally limited country of his birth – France – we are going to expose him to soul food, to Thai food, to Mexican food, to Turkish food, to every food style we can find.

I think it will be the apex of his summer in the USA – and a small step in bridging the culteral gap (which today seems to be insanely huge) between USA and France.

26

Jim Harrison 08.28.04 at 4:55 am

Since religions are organized systems of fantasy, they can adapt to anything. They’ve got no bones in ’em. Unlike the sciences, which are more or less stuck with recalcitrant objective realities that limit their flexibility, Islamacists can decide one fine day that they really do (and always did) believe in peace and tolerance. Many Muslims are already about as frightening as the average Methodist. With a little luck, the whole religion will follow a similar paith and just become a bunch of nice folks with funny ideas.

27

drapeto 08.28.04 at 6:54 am

No one initiative like this will change history. But what other option is there, really?

the response to the Djerejian task force on “why they hate us” found West Asians thought it was patronizing and evasive to focus on “dialogue” rather on US foreignpolicy, and any number of critics of Islamism have pointed out that Islamists win public approval by providing social services and spaces for dissent. So, there are many other alternatives to kumbaya one-on-one bonding of “youth leaders” (not that I have any great objection to the latter) and “aggressively defining” the US in the modern world.

Muslims must learn to live with Human Rights respecting governments. NOT an easy or quick process.

hahahahaha. as if muslims are protesting against their govts’ respect for human rights. the incredible repression of islamists (among others) by authoritarian/royalist/semi-marxist/whatever govts have popularized islamism as a vehicle of dissent. not to mention that the US should learn to live with west asian human-rights respecting govts…

28

abb1 08.28.04 at 11:18 am

tedsdad,
France? Are you serious? You think there is no Chinese or Thai food in France? “Culteral” gap, indeed. That French exchange student of yours must be laughing his ass off every night.

29

Matt Weiner 08.28.04 at 10:43 pm

Look, I am not fond of Santorum, Bush, and DeLay, but if we are in a situation where the most pernicious Muslim fanatics are doing what those three are doing then we will have won this fight. Anyway, can the Koran be reconciled with abortion and gay rights? Probably at least as well as the Tanach can, and look at how U.S. Jews like me vote. I agree with Jim Harrison on this (except maybe the “fantasy” part)–you can be Muslim and non-nasty perfectly easily.

As for the idea that most Muslims won’t abandon Islam, in the short run–I don’t have any special knowledge (but, as for Soroush and Pooya, at this moment I’m a bit leery of taking the word of exiles for what the folks back home are thinking). It’s just a prediction. I just think that “Adopt our principles and you can get rid of your stupid religion” won’t sound awfully appealing to most people. I’m not awfully thrilled when K-Marx tells me that in the socialist utopia there won’t be any more need for Judaism, and I’m not that devout.

30

self 08.28.04 at 11:11 pm

Jim,
Are you suggesting that myths have no purpose other than “fantasy” ?
Not an attack mind you, just thought there should be an opportunity to clarify a rather colorful phrase.

31

seth edenbaum 08.29.04 at 12:56 am

—The African American comunity has ample reasons for legitimate criticism. Anti-Semitism, sexism, lack of democracy, lack of opportunity, nurturing of terrorism… these are sad realities, not the hallucinations of right-wingers. Anger and criticism are appropriate, but our approach has to start with the assumption that Blacks are not going away. Short of deliberate genocide, there’s no way forward in the long run except for “hearts and minds.”—

32

v 08.29.04 at 10:10 pm

There is no such thing as an “Islamic world” or a “moderate islamic” nation . The countries which have muslim majorities also have minorities of other religions. Calling them part of the “Islamic world” lets them get away with persecution and murder of minorities, and avoid the necessity to separate church and state. An Islamic state is a fascist state if it incorporates Islam into its practise of law and awarding of rights to its citizens. Saudi Arabia is a fascist state and must be treated as such, and the same goes for other regimes of this sort.

Muslims are not going to go away and neither do they need to. The problem is not with Islam as a religion or with its followers. The problem lies in the mixture of church and state, which gives officially sanctioned religious authorities the power to interpret and decide how Islam should be practised and “implemented” by everyone else.

Have people ever considered the fact that the places referred to as the “Islamic World” are all the places where muslims are in a majority, and which are predominantly theocratic societies, where non-muslims are either persecuted or denied their rights? There is India, where there are more muslims than in any other country except Indonesia. Muslims there do not persecute anyone, and neither are their rights denied. And in India Church and state are separated in law.

U.S policy towards the “Islamic world” on the one hand appeases fascist tendencies in the “Islamic world” and on the other hand appears prejudicial to Islam as a religion. The very notion of a “moderate Islamic state” spouted by eveyone from Colin Powell to the New York Times is a notion of appeasement.

33

Jim Harrison 08.29.04 at 10:16 pm

Self,

Calling religion fantasy was supposed to be a way of pointing out the mostly uncontroversial fact that religions are purely human constructions that reflect our wishes and needs rather than extrahuman realities. God is like the classical Freudian analyst. Unlike real shrinks, his nonexistence guarantees unbroken theraputic silence and He is therefore a perfect screen upon which to project dreams and hopes. When we change, God changes because there’s nobody here but us chickens. Which is actually a hopeful fact, if it is a fact, since it implies, among other things, that nothing besides human perversity prevents Islam from getting over some of its crazier features.

Obviously believers don’t share my view of all this, but I wasn’t addressing them—if any such be within earshot, peace be with you. I was talking or trying to talk to people who also don’t think there is any propositional truth in religion, but somehow forget from time to time that they don’t buy a word of Christianity and Islam except, perhaps, in complicated allegorical ways alien to the vast majority of believers. Respect for the others sometimes requires that we acknowledge that we think they are all wet. They certainly think we are.

34

self 08.30.04 at 5:19 am

Jim,
I’m not convinced that you respect Islamic people at all, and this is the problem. You don’t think religion has any basis in reality, fine, I don’t either. However, the tone of your comments will contribute nothing toward establishing a dialogue with believers that may have potential to change themselves and their culture to the benefit of us all.

Islamic and Christian beliefs in the extreme are perhaps psychological barriers to advancing the overall human condition. Overcoming those barriers will require constructive dialogue that allows a believer to abandon the dependency on mythical explanations of complex experiences. This interchange also requires an understanding free of condescension from those who do not share these beliefs. Describing them as all wet will not cut it.

Don’t deny the possibility that you could learn a thing or two by studying Islam and seeing the world’s experiences from a different perspective. Science comes with its own baggage so let’s not pretend it is the absolute standard for discovering truth. To so so would border on moral objectivism and that’s something we can all do without.

35

Jim Harrison 08.30.04 at 6:42 am

If I were addressing an audience of traditional believers, I would certainly take a different tone since I have no quarrel whatsoever with such people, I’m certainly not trying to establish a dialogue with them. I do hope and expect that modern versions of militant Islam will eventually turn into something less politically threatening, but if such a mellowing process does take place, it will be something that happens inside Islam.

Your notion that one is very likely to learn and thing or two by studying Islam does have its problematic side. Are you yourself a great expert on things Islamic so that you can assure us of its great spiritual treasures? Or is that just a reflexive expression of multi-cultural piety ? Your comment assumes both that I don’t know very much about Islam and that I don’t have any respect for various Islamic figures. Both assumptions are incorrect.

By the way, are you absolutely sure that moral objectivism is something we can all do without?

36

JamesW 08.30.04 at 4:05 pm

Another starting point would be for Americans to avoid using language like “act aggressively to define itself in the Islamic world”. Only in the USA does “aggressive” carry a positive connotation. American aggressiveness is seen by many Muslims (and non-Muslims) as the problem not the solution.

37

Ted Clayton 08.30.04 at 4:48 pm

Just a technical note: I tried to click on the link, but it isn’t working….

38

self 08.30.04 at 8:19 pm

Jim,
This will be my last response on this matter so you are free to take the last shot.
Your position is simply not credible. If you had an appropriate level of respect for various Islamic figures you would not be making statements like, “With a little luck, the whole religion will follow a similar paith and just become a bunch of nice folks with funny ideas”.
No, I’m not an expert on Islam. Multi-culturalism is a good thing. And although I am not absolutely sure (since you seem comfortable with it) that we could all do without it, I am personally quite opposed to moral objectivism.
That is all.

Comments on this entry are closed.