This came in as a comment from Michael Greene on the post below concerning Eric Raymond’s articles on the bleak future of Islamic/Western relations, and seemed interesting enough to move up from comment to the blog. As usual, my comments are interspersed.
If war is ‘built into’ the Islamic faith, why have they fought such comparably fewer wars than the West has? Millions and millions have died in European wars, what was the last major war the Islamic world participated in, Iran-Iraq?
I think the whole idea of Europe and America trying to pretend that the Islamic people are more war-like is joke given the past 100 years of modern history.
First, Ive never said that Western culture isnt warlike. I was overly casual in my statement; the argument made is that war is built into the conflict between the Western and Islamic cultures. Having said that, Ill point out that the West has been and is moving away from war and toward markets and diplomacy, while in the Islamic world militancy (in the military sense) is rising. This is partly caused, I would guess, by the need of increasingly dictatorial governments to stay in power, and partly by the real or perceived threats from their neighbors and the West. Let’s see…Iran/Iraq, Iraq/Kurd, Iraq/Kuwait, Pakistan/India, Kyrgyzstan, Chechnya, the Moluccas…that’s just off the top of my head.
Furthermore, Eric Raymond has apparently done absolutely no research on Islamic history. The entire history of early Islam and the later spread of the relgion has many instances of war, but virtually every one of them is seen as a final step necessary only after negotiation has failed. Furthermore, a fundamental aspect of Islamic war is that you must treat your enemy with respect and dignity once the battle is over.
To go even further into this poorly constructed argument between this site and Eric Raymond’s, Huntington does not say at all that Islamic society is more war-like than Western, rather that the two are destined to war over a clash in ideas and values.
As noted above, that was my careless construction. Id love some evidence (cites) on this. As I noted, Im relatively ignorant on Islamic history (which still probably means I know more than a lot of folks), and would love to see some examples which lead one away from Raymonds bleak conclusion.
While I agree with you that diplomacy might mean different things to different cultures, there is absolutely no evidence that one society is inherently more warlike than any other. In fact, on the basis of the evidence it would seem that Europe and the United States are the most war-like, but certainly that could not be the case, could it? Furthermore, the things being asked for by the respectable (non-fanatic) Muslims are all very reasonable things. Mostly they are asking for a fair solution in Israel/Palestine, and for greater democracy and freedom in their lands which leads to more economic prosperity (or vice-versa). My own travels have revealed a world whose people (if not governments) are rapidly coming together. It would be a huge mistake to listen to an Eric Raymond type who sees fundamental differences in humanity itself that make one group “more warlike” even though the evidence is clearly against that view. Such divisions are precisely what is not needed to engage the moderate majority of people in the world who want economic prosperity first and foremost.
The points I see here are:
1) not clear which society is more warlike; Ill say it is more a matter of trends than absolutes. I think it is clear the we are militarily the strongest power on earth, and in an earlier post, I worried that if the conflict between the West and the Islamic world got serious enough, there might not be an Islamic world any more.
2) Your point about respectable Muslims would be taken a lot more seriously if I saw any evidence of them in the Muslim media I read here; similarly I think we might have very different ideas of what constitutes a fair solution in Israel/Palestine. Id love references and reading suggestions.
3) You suggest that your travels show you people who are rapidly coming together; mine have shown me that we see things that tell us that is the case superficially (we all like Coke, and love Britney) but that at the deeper levels of culture and politics, there is a lot of room for conflict. The Lexus and the Olive Tree suggests (in part) that were all coming together into one global set of brand-conscious consumers; Im not completely sure I agree.
Look, as in most arguments, there are certainly cases to make on both sides. But I have a hard time (as I’ve said over and over again) with the ‘moral equivalence’ position, that delegitimizes all of U.S. history because we took the land from the Indians (and so on). Comparing civil life, political freedom, personal freedom, and a whole bunch of things that I value highly, this is a much better place to be than there, and while Id never force anyone to adopt our lifestyle at the point of a gun (can we say that about them?), Im firmly on this team, and I think that thinking folks of all stripes should be as well.
Date: 07/03/2002 00:00:00 AM
The problem isn’t Islam. The problem is Islam + Arab culture. Those countries that are Islamic but not Arab – Turkey, Indonesia, Malaysia – are not the ones that are causing problems in the world. (I know, Iran is currently an exception to this. But Iran is fitfully and inconsistently moving towards secular democracy. Give them ten years and they’ll be cool.)
Date: 07/03/2002 00:00:00 AM
The example of Iran’s overthrow of the Shah is probably the best example to illustrate Howard’s point. The forced modernization of the Shah reach a tipping point and the result was the ascension of Khomeini and the repressive clerics that still rule. The clerics are walking in fear these days as young people cheer America and long for freedoms the Shah promoted before. To make any blanket assumption about how to “deal” with the Islamic problem that doesn’t acknowledge the basic humanity and striving for freedom and dignity of the Islamic people is doomed to failure. I nearly always disagree with Bush, but an insistence that the Palestinians embrace democracy and democratic institutions is the only path that makes sense. I wish he would make the same demand of Saudi Arabia and Egypt. It has always seemed to me that the main reason we are hated is our reluctance to share our dreams of democracy and freedom with the rank and file Muslims who suffer under the autocratic rule of clerics, sheiks, military rulers, and incompetent bunglers. The day we stand up for the ordinary Muslim is the day we start winning the war against terrorists.
Date: 07/02/2002 00:00:00 AM
Thanks for your comments, they were valuable and made me think about what I had written. I see your point more clearly now. I also agree in many ways with Howard, even though on the surface we take an opposite opinion. What I would add to his remarks is that an interesting historical exercise is to see what it was that changed Christianity from a dogmatic, ‘violent’, repressive religion into the open, inclusive, tolerant, capitalist-friendly religion we know today. I would suggest that that reform did not come from within the faith itself. As applied to our current discussion, I believe that external forces will require Muslims to find the elements of their faith that encourage the values that are in reality much closer to Muhammed’s vision.One part of Howard’s statement that I would take issue with is the common myth of forced conversion. The vast majority of Islamic people in the world today, including the intitial remarkable rise of Islam, were not converted by force. If the example of Spain can be seen as somewhat of a touchstone, we can see that Christians and Jews lived together with Muslims and were not forcibly converted. It was the Catholics who forced conversions on the Jews and Muslims who wanted to remain on the Iberian peninsula.I would never suggest that any ‘group’ or nation is free from atrocity (for example, in Spain Christians may not have been forcibly converted, but they were executed for ‘defaming the prophet’), excess, and barbarity… however separating the myths from the facts is a lot more fun!
Date: 07/02/2002 00:00:00 AM
“, I?m firmly on this team, and I think that thinking folks of all stripes should be as well.”The problem a lot of us have is that this statement is very often used (and I am not saying you do this) as an excuse to demonize the “other team” (Raymond’s notion that the West is somehow less violent than the Islamic world is a joke, and bad logic. It ignores every other factor that shapes a society and the decisions it makes in favor of the one factor that differentiates the given society from ours) and to paper over or ignore our side’s contribution to the problems. Many of the things that people broadly criticize the Islamic world for are things that we help create. We are the largest supporter of Egypt, we are the largest customer of Saudi Arabia, we are the nation that overthrow the democratically elected government of Iran. Those actions have the consequence of suppressing democratic forces in the Arab world. In a very real sense, the West has chosen to back those who would make the Qu’ran a book of war. That is what is so infuriating about pieces like Raymond’s, and the whole notion that the Arab world is just inherently violent. Not only is it bigotry, it is exceedingly dangerous bigotry. By ignoring our own actions, and steps we can take to correct the consequences of those actions, we merely run in place. Killing terrorists is not enough – we must try and make a world where terrorists can gain no foothold. We cannot do that by hiding behind comforting illusions.
Date: 07/01/2002 00:00:00 AM
This whole subject has been much on my mind of recent days (as anyone who reads my blog knows) … As I learn more, I think a case can be made for a peaceful Islam. There is enough room within the Qu’ran to accommodate moderates. But there is also much to give succor to militant fundamentalists. And given the cyclical history of militant fundamentalism re-asserting itself within Islam when ever moderates begin to make progress, I don’t think we are unwise to view Islam with suspicion. Furthermore, when we look at the history of Islam, which your corespondent takes a narrow look at, we see a religion that has no compunction about spreading itself via military means. We also see a religion that my today’s Western standards is repressive where it gains power.