Stereotyping Muslims
It’s sad to see a highly regarded scholar holding to his neo-con misbegotten worldview, despite mountains of new contradictory evidence pilling up on top of old ones. Fouad Ajami, a leading scholar at Johns Hopkins University, just stated that he has come to agree with Sam Huntington: there is a clash of civilizations, between our free world and the brutal Muslim one.
The essence of prejudice, the mother of discrimination, is to tar all the members of any given group with attributes that some of its members may well indeed exhibit. Thus the cardinal flaw in Huntington’s thesis is to treat whole civilizations as if they were of one kind. Huntington argued that “fourteen hundred years of history demonstrate” that the West has problems not only with violent Islamist extremists, but Islam itself. But actual data from many sources (which I summarized in Security First’s Part III) show that most Muslims reject violence, terrorism, suicide bombing and the ways of bin Laden. This is especially true for Muslims in Indonesia, Bangladesh, Malaysia, and Morocco -- where most Muslims live. For instance, many Muslim view Jihad as a spiritual journey and not a war against infidels. Moreover, there are those who favor violence in all civilizations.
And then comes Professor Ajami, writing in the New York Times on January 6th that recent history has validated Huntington’s work: young Arabs and Muslims are the “shook-troops of a new radicalism” and Islam as a whole has grown “belligerent and assertive.” And the West is destined to clash with Islam, not some, not most, but all of it.
Huntington had posited that Turkey would redefine itself, moving back towards a position as the “principal Islamic interlocutor and antagonist of the West.” Ajami, looking at the recent development in Turkey, sees Huntington’s prophesies coming true. Islamists, as opposed to modernists, have prevailed. In fact, the governing party in Turkey is so moderate, its view are regarded as heretical by many devout Muslims. It already did more for women rights than the last three previous Turkish governments combined. Also Turkey just expanded the right to free speech. Much has been made about the fact that the wife of the President—who is not an official—is wearing a head scarf. However, no one in Turkey is required by law to wear one.
The neo cons’ cardinal folly arises out of making whether a people subscribe to a democratic regime the litmus test of those who are with us and not against us -- and many in most “civilizations” (China included) do not subscribe to democracy. However, if one makes the litmus test whether a people reject terrorism, do not seek to invade other countries, and forgo the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction, one finds that most people—around the world—qualify as Partners in Peace. Lumping these pro-peace groups with our enemies leads to an expansion of the clash we face from select terrorists, which is troubling enough, to a clash of civilizations. It is a clash that exists only in the minds of a few neo cons and their followers, who by now should know better.
Amitai Etzioni is a University Professor at George Washington University and the author of Security First: For a Muscular, Moral Foreign Policy. www.securityfirstbook.com
Comments (27)
However, no one in Turkey is required by law to wear [a hijab]. Etzioni
Well, that settles that!
January 25, 2008 9:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd like to start by stereotyping my fellow Christians, beginning with the allegedly practicing Christian who goes by the name of Condi Rice. Notice how she has been "outraged" by the Gazans knocking down the starvation wall, but she was quite content for those same people to go hungry. Starving for the greater good, I suppose. (And only weeks ago the press was harping on her "sensitivity" because of her personal experiences in the Jim Crow South. I hated old Dixie, but I don't remember Bull Connor stopping Black Alabamans from buying food.)
S what would Jesus do? If we look to his followers....apparently, not a lot.
January 25, 2008 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
You call yourself the mythbuster. Well, it is certainly a myth that the South is more predudiced against blacks than the North. It just is not true. I have encountered far more predudice in the Yankee cities than the south. The "Jim Crow South", as you called it was invented by people in the north who are predudiced against about everyone.
January 26, 2008 3:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Um, tenandout, Condi Rice grew up in that Jim Crow South that you say is a myth. You can argue about which region is more prejudiced now and I wouldn't know who is right, but obviously you have no credibility on the subject.
January 26, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Donald, he wrote: "You call yourself the mythbuster. Well, it is certainly a myth that the South is more predudiced against blacks than the North."
This is a great point....if only I had actually made it. You see, I always lose arguments about things that I didn't say....
January 29, 2008 7:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fouad Ajami has been playing the good-natured moderate surrounded by ideologues for a couple of decades now while pushing a conservative agenda. It's a pity as he did have roots way way back in a liberalism that might actually have accommodated both a free Palistine and a safe Israel. But it's a little late for him to pretend that he's just discovered how big a crackpot he had better be.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
January 25, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is, of course, the Fouad Ajami who wrote the notorious fallen soldier op-ed in the Wall Street Journal in support of Scotter Libby:
January 25, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
The problem here is that Etzioni is so shocked, just shocked, that a whack job revealed himself as a whack job.
Etzioni needs to do a better job at picking his friends.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
January 25, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
America fails this litmus test.
Can we take a make-up next November?
January 25, 2008 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amazingly, this on-going conflict bewteen the United States and Islam did not manifest until the Cold War unexpectedly came to an end and it became necessary to invent a new enemy.
Islamic-American conflicts since that dreadful business with the Barbary Pirates have been few and far between. Probably even Huntington couldn't tell us which side Islam favored in the Civil War. The Turks allied themselves with Germany and Austria in the First World War, but Austria and Germany were Christian powers and Turkey was a junior partner. Lawrence of Arabia helped the Arabs rid themselves of the last vestiges of Turkish rule later in the war, to the plaudits of the Americans, who learned of his exploits through Lowell Thomas, who used to have a radio show in CBS.
The Arabs' opinions of Rommel, Montgomery and later Eisenhower generally do not appear in the vast body of work about the Desert War in WWII, but more Arabs fought for the Allies than the Nazis by any possible count, and not by a small margin. Mussolini's savage conquest of Libya and the valiant resistance of Arab heros like Omar Mukhtar had soured much of Islam on Fascism. Much of the Free French forces were made up of soldiers from French North Africa. They led the way to the capture of Monte Cassino, by the way -- after the Texans of the 36th Division had been stopped. In Italy, in fact, the Allied forces included both Arabs and the Jewish Brigade, from what is now Israel. All on the same side, along with the Brazilians.
Francis Gary Powers set off for Russia in his U-2 from a base in Peshawar, Pakistan. Eleven years later, when India threatened to intevene to stop the atrocities in what is now Bangladesh, Nixon sided with Pakistan, although if the sales of "The Concert for Bangladesh" album are a measure, most Americans who considered the matter sided with independence for the Moslems of Bangladesh.
Far from having a long history, conflict between America, the West and the Islamic world has been almost non-existent, at least when compared to what might be called the German Wars of the 19th and 20th Centuries, in which Islam was barely even an afterthought. Since Thomas Jefferson, the U.S. has had almost no conflict with Islam until quite recently. As for the West, well, it was Napoleon who invaded Egypt, not the Khedive who invaded France.
January 25, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your first point is the strongest. The scariest day in the Pentagon's history was November 9, 1989....when the Berlin Wall fell and the Military Industrial Complex lost much of its raison d'etre (at those funding levels). The heresy of the peace dividend was uttered on many lips.
The "clash" between Islam and the West will last until the Pentagon can slot the Chinese into the "evil doer" slot.
January 25, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, but you're forgetting about the Crusades when... well, nevermind.
Ah, wait. I know! Islam conquered Spain and invaded France! It took Spain centuries to dislodge the moors. We mustn't allow ourselves to forget - it's only been a little over 500 years, after all. Spain could fall again to the fascist sword of Islam if we let our guard down for one moment.
January 25, 2008 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah yes! And what a victory for human rights when the Spanish Christians finally replaced Muslim intolerance with . . . the Inquisition!
January 26, 2008 5:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
As I recall the history, the Muslim Moors were esply intolerant of injustice and persecution of minorities in their 'Spanish' communities, which included Jews and Christians; on the contrary, they lived side-by-side in peace and all enjoyed a very creative and 'high civilization' for quite a while.
~so many revolting developments make so many developing revolts~
January 26, 2008 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're absolutely right. By the standards of the time, the Spanish Muslims were extraordinarily tolerant. While non-Muslims were not fully equal to Muslims, many held high political office and had prominent roles in society. Jews, in particular, did well under Muslim rule, especially when compared with their fate under the subsequent Christian regime.
January 26, 2008 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
This was true of the Umayyad Caliphate, well-deserving of its enlightened reputation. It was very much not true of the later Muslim rulers in Spain, who came from rather fanatical Berber tribes. They were so fiercely intolerant that even many Muslims preferred the rule of the Christian kings (who were not particularly intolerant at that era of Spain's history-- there was no Spanish Inquisition until centuries later)
January 28, 2008 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Be forewarned: some in The Netherlands want to keep pushing the envelope.
January 25, 2008 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
January 25, 2008 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
In the same way Americans are trying it now: by doing what we can to impeach &/or remove our present criminal regime, voting for the opposition, making efforts to insure our votes are actually counted, and of course, by not believing the same old lies about our latest 'current enemy and threat to our own security and world peace -- Iran' or by not following our leading outlaws into another illegal and unjustified war against humanity ...
~so many revolting developments make so many developing revolts~
January 26, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
What sane person would fan flames if their kitchen stove lit up rather than look for a way to put it out? One really has to wonder about the agenda of those would would fan the flames of conflict rather than focus on ways to resolve any potential problems that do exist between us and anybody else.
What will bring even disparate groups of any race or religion together in anger faster than a generalized, unfair campaign against them as a whole group?
Obviously there are Osamas out there, just as sure as there are world leaders who waste lives for no good reason except their own lack of creativity on economic and diplomacy fronts. Both should be disabled from unleashing their madness on the rest of the world.
There are also real and unspeakable atrocities being committed in Darfur in the Muslim name. And it is disturbing that some muslim communities have institutionalized brutality toward women and homosexuals. I'd like to all of see that change, but we've now got our own list of human rights abuses to put in order.
There has been such a bombardment of anti-muslim media lately. I decided to read up a little on propaganda. Googled a bit and read about how before WWII, German audiences were bombarded with reminders of the Nazi Party and Germany's struggle against foreign and internal enemies, especially Jews.
Also found some propaganda quotes:
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people
from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."
- Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Propaganda Minister
"Propaganda must not serve the truth especially not insofar as it might bring out something favorable for the opponent."
- Adolf Hitler
"The owners and managers of the press determine which person, which facts, which version of the facts, and which ideas shall reach the public."
- Commission On Freedom Of The Press
Propaganda Quotes
"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda."
- George W. Bush
"You must not kill your neighbor, whom perhaps you genuinely hate, but by a little propaganda this hate can be transferred to some foreign nation, against whom all your murderous impulses become patriotic heroism."
- Bertrand Russell
"We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. ... It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries."
- David Rockefeller, Bilderberg Meeting, June 1991 Baden, Germany
"Undoubtedly you have all swallowed the Mary Poppins Myth as peddled in the film, Mary Poppins, but We wish to give YOU the truth. You will all have heard of Adolf Hitler. You may also know that one of the reasons that he came to power was because the German people thought he would protect them from Communism. But there was another, more sinister reason. Yes, the German feared one person more than any other. That one person was: MARY POPPINS.
"Yes, you may laugh and wonder why this never appeared in your school textbooks, but that is because your Government wants to protect you from the true terror of her brief, but bloody regime. Mary Poppins (MP) swept to power in the 1929 German general election. This was due mostly to her brilliant propaganda. Slogans such as "Freedom, Bread, Land, Feed The Birds" appealed to the desperate population. Once in power, she was brutal. She was the real "Bloody Mary".
"Together with her elite army of "chimney sweeps" (This was the name given to them prior to her victory to avoid detection), she terrorized millions, poisoning millions with what she called her "medicine". MP was not the only German dictator to harbor dreams of world domination. Her plan to infiltrate London with spies failed due to their appalling fake cockney accents. The true depths of her wickedness still remain hidden, even to us; but we will give you fresh facts as soon as they come to light."
- Unknown
January 25, 2008 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you need to keep a open mind about this and stop assuming that the United States or the West, always creates its own reality. In many ways the notion that 'we' created the 'Islamic Threat' to fill the void of the communist vacuum is just as arrogant as the neocons vision: the US/West is always in control.
I just finished reading A Peace to End All Peace by David Fromkin and one of the things that struck me the most was how the Arabs and the Turks were every bit the strategic equals of the British who tried to control their destiny.
The Turks managed to inflict some impressive defeats on the British at Kut and Gallipoli. And in the midst of the struggle managed to cleanse Anatolia of its pre 1913 non Muslim inhabitants (2 million Greeks and 2 million Armenians). As for the Arabs, well when the conflict began Arabia was divided and backward and by the end of the War, Abd Al Aziz Al Saud was well on his way to uniting the Kingdom.
What do we really know about Islamic law and theology? What is ethical in Islam? What is unethical? How is it different from western secularism? What does this difference mean? I'm still looking for the answers. All I can say for now is that having read the Koran one is left with the distinct and unsettling notion that Allah is not the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. And that is a difference so consequential that I don't think we have found a way yet to think and talk about it.
In the past we ignored the Islamic World because we could. They did not possess the technology or the wealth to touch us. Now in this globalized world we are getting very intimate. One prays that we can live in peace, the way Chinese civilization and Indian civilization can live in peace with the rest of humanity. Can Islam live in peace with humanity as it is? Or does its very essence demand conflict?
It's a question for us to ponder.
January 25, 2008 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is certainly important to keep an open mind on this subject, until you study the known facts. For exmple we should keep an open mind about who wants to invade who, until we study the history of the past 8 years. Having done that I think I know who wants to invade who.
We need to keep an open mind about who attacked an innocent country, killing thousands of the citizens of that country. But, I have studied the past 8 years and now I know who the attacking group was.
It is also good to keep an open mind about who is threatening to attack still another country, in this case, a Moslem country. My study reveals that it isn't another Moslem country.
My mind is now pretty well made up.
Hoppy in Sacramento
January 25, 2008 9:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't know David Fromkin had translated the Koran! (okay, I made that up ...! hahaha)
If, as you say:
"All I can say for now is that having read the Koran one is left with the distinct and unsettling notion that Allah is not the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob."
It's pretty clear how confused 'one' can be! There may even be others similarly confused, but then even GW Bush had quite a few followers for awhile ...
~so many revolting developments make so many developing revolts~
January 26, 2008 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can any religion that wants to expand live in peace with the rest of humanity? This applied to Christianity, and still does. It does not really apply to Judaism, which lacks the proselytizing principles. (Of course, its exclusive nature invited the opposite, being expelled or killed off.)
Islam in a less zealous form, like Christianity in less zealous form, is of course not a threat to other peoples. It is precisely the devout and proselytizing forms that go farther, into conquering to achieve God's glory.
So it has less to do with Islam than with fundamentalism, in either religion. The very essence of all organized religions tends to conflict with civilization, enlightenment, and non-violent conflict resolution.
January 27, 2008 9:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
The conclusion that democracy brings about peace is nonsense. A democracy will be only as good as its people. Democracy does not gurantee a government will be a good government or that the decisions made by that government will be good. Our country derides dictatorships, and certainly history is replete with evil dictators. However, there have been benevolent dictators, and benevolent kings who ran far better governments than any government the voters of the United States have produced.
January 26, 2008 4:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
In other news, water is wet and the sky is blue.
The argument for democracy isn't that it produces the best possible outcome regardless of the circumstances. The argument is that democracy, on the whole, prevents the worst screwups possible under other systems. To quote Churchill, "democracy is the worst possible system of government, except for all the others."
Even if the US never produced a leader the equal of an Elizabeth or an Augustus (which we have), at least we never produced a John or a Caligula either.
Noel
January 26, 2008 7:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your point holds even though the premise is not supportable. I would like see those examples of "far better governments", and wonder what metric is used to define "better."
The only measure that matters is whether the governed are content. If all inhabitants of a country are included in that, no monarchy or dictatorship will find endorsement for its performance.
January 26, 2008 8:02 AM | Reply | Permalink