Rethinking Islamist Terrorism
Dan Yankelovich

Participant
I would like to offer my sincere thanks to Patricia for leading this important and timely dialog. I think we are at a crucial time in dealing with the problems in the Middle East, and confronting militant Islam. The "honeymoon," --if I can call it that-- of the invasion of Afghanistan, and Iraq is over and the so-called "Arab street," as well as people in Iran and other Muslim countries will start looking for tangible results in these countries. If the U. S. does not deliver, we will be in much worst situation than before these two major actions in the area.

Daniel has put forward a very interesting, practical, and forward looking program. I hope we can discuss it in the days to come and hopefully develop a plan of action to implement it.

My credentials as a Moslem are not one of a scholar of the religion, but as Patricia has accurately indicated, one who was born and raised in a society in which Islam had an all encompassing influence. It dictated a way of life down to level of what we were allowed to eat and wear. Even the laws of the secular government of the time, when I was in Iran, and the way it functioned, were influenced by the Islamic law. Another way of reflecting my true credentials is that you will find my articles in the American Journal of Distance Education, and the Educational Technology Research and Development journal and not where Islamic theologians publish their treaties. As such, you will see in my contributions to this discussion the views of an ordinary person, and not a scholar of the religion. Now that I have said this, I can join the discussion with ease of mind that I have not misrepresented myself.

To kick off my joining the discussion, I tried to put myself in the shoes of a young Islamic seminarian in the city of Qum (in central Iran, where almost all future mullahs are educated) and see how I would react to one of the proposition that Daniel has put forward that Western style democracy would weaken the orthodoxy of Islam by introducing cultural relativism in society. If I were a young seminarian, I would have asked my teacher (usually a grand ayatollah) why Islam is so weak that is afraid of democracy? Wouldn’t introduction of lesser ideas in an Islamic society, in fact highlight the strengths of Islam, instead of weakening it?

Participant
Before considering how best to win the peace, it might be a good idea to complete winning the war.

The United States has proven that it has the power to rapidly overcome all nationally organized formal armed forces. It is very effective whether it does so by judicious bribery as in Afghanistan, or by overwhelming technical power as in the two Iraq conflicts.

It has not been successful in removing personal small arms from individuals, and until it can do so no pacification proposals, no matter how wise, can hope to succeed.

Jordan faced the same problem after Black September. My understanding is that King Hussein established the basis for his peaceful reign by the following harsh edict:

Everyone in the country was ordered to place all weapons and ammunition in front of their houses for confiscation by the government and when the initial pickup was completed an announcement was made that all houses would now be searched using sniffer dogs to detect any hidden weapons.

If any weapons were discovered the house would be immediately bulldozed to the ground. A few houses in Amman were so bulldozed. As soon as it was realized that the king was serious, most Jordanians decided that their houses were of more importance than their weapons.

Only then, I am told, was the king able to win over the Palestinians in Jordan, by good government.

Participant
I think Dan has laid out a most impressive and coherent set of ideas and look forward to deeper discussion of them. A couple of thoughts that I'd like to insert into this conference at the beginning are: (a) that everything is in motion these days, definitely including Islam, and we need to be sensitive to the fact that there is an intense ferment of thinking, rethinking, learning and argument in Islamic societies as well as in our own, and (b) that democracy is taking on the status of a global norm -- something aspired to or professed by most people. That may sound pollyannaish, but it can be quite well documented (see, for example, Fareed Zakaria's book The Future of Freedom) and it doesn't so much mean an end to conflict and turmoil as the opening of a new chapter of world history that will involve, among other things, recognizing how many different ways democracy can be defined and practiced, and also letting go of the idea that it's something we in the West own and can simply export to other countries.

Participant
I'm pleased to hear what Walter says above, and wish I had more confidence than I do that his point (a) is, in fact, the case -- I.e. that Islamic societies are open to learning.

Participant
I can think of several Muslims who have strong feelings and convictions about point (a). I don't think we can get far in the directions Dan is proposing if we insist on regarding those societies as completely shut down and immobile.

Participant
This message is a personal view with regard to the mixing of religion and governance. I want to assure everyone that it is NOT MEANT to be anti-religious, but rather my feeling that it can be one way to move towards global understandings and still preserving the integrity of all religions.

Ironically, my text for this thought is rooted in the following sentence in Dan's # 3 copied below:

"* A specifically religious response to the Islamist challenge, emphasizing that Islam, Christianity and Judaism are all children of Abraham, and that no religion enjoys a monopoly of knowledge of God's word and meaning."

I fully endorse what Dan has written, but would like to add the following thought: MANY RELIGIONS BELIEVE THAT THEIR TEACHINGS SHOULD BE EMBEDDED IN GOVERNMENT. BUT IN THE INTEREST OF WORLD PEACE, WHICH IS DESIRED BY ALL NATIONS, THESE BELIEFS MUST BE MUTED WITH REGARD TO RELATIONSHIPS TO OTHER NATIONS.

How this might be accomplished is beyond my understanding of world religions and world governments. My only experience has been with regard to the development of UN arbitration rules that in effect had to be worded to fit nations of all religions. I cannot claim that this was always accomplished, but there are enough instances of arbitration rules that are accepted by both Islam and nations of other religious that I have dared to even raise this thought here.

Participant
Don, are you asking whether our government can take a religious stance, even if it is ecumenical, because of the separation of church and state?

Participant
Dick: Short answer is YES. I am suggesting that religion is a subject for individual preference and freedom to choose. I do not approve of Pres Bush insisting on his religious preferences in his providing AIDS help in Africa, or in providing Federal funds to charities here in the US. I further believe that efforts to increase world peace will be better if we accept any religious preferences within the national activities of any nation, but not in the relationships of different nations.

Participant
Don, was it the line in Dan's commentary about recognizing that all three dominant religions trace their origins to Abraham, and that no one religion has a monopoly on understanding God's word and meaning, suggesting a theistic posture for America, that raised red flags for you? As an aside, you no doubt know that archeologists claim there is no archeological evidence for Abraham's existence, ditto Moses, ditto the Exodus.

Participant
Dick: we must be misunderstanding each other. There was no red flag in Dan's commentary for me. To the contrary, I would guess, from what Dan wrote, that he would agree with most of my #5 with the possible exception of MANY RELIGIONS BELIEVE THAT THEIR TEACHINGS SHOULD BE EMBEDDED IN GOVERNMENT. BUT IN THE INTEREST OF WORLD PEACE, WHICH IS DESIRED BY ALL NATIONS, THESE BELIEFS MUST BE MUTED WITH REGARD TO RELATIONSHIPS TO OTHER NATIONS.

Dick: There was nothing in Dan's commentary that raised a red flag for me and you will note that I prefaced my sentence in caps following a statement that I agree with everything he had written. I also thought of my addition as an important sequitur to what he had written.

It seems to me that this is just an attempt to rephrase the first amendment of our Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". In short, I strongly believe that world peace demands:

Full tolerance and respect for anyone, anywhere, worshipping any religion of their choice.

An absence of any reference to religion in the making of treaties or other international negotiations other than the recognition of individual rights to the religion of his/her choice.

As I write the above it seems so obvious that I feel silly taking up space for it. Does it still seem like a red flag to you?

Participant
Sorry, Don. I was trying to figure out what might have triggered your response.

Participant
I don't know what Dan meant by his comment, but in reading it I interpret it to be saying that communication is a significant part of conflict resolution and if the parties involved are communicating from fundamentally different perspectives progress is unlikely. Perhaps, for example, the point of view expressed by the USA is essentially funded by a belief in something such as enlightened self interest which encourages profit and expediency. Nothing inherently wrong with that, but if Islam is essentially funded by the belief that there is an external code of conduct which outweighs, in value, the enlightened self interest, then the dialogue is stuck before it even begins. In such a situation, perhaps there is value in one party adopting, as well as it can, a point of view that is at least funded by the same general belief as that held by the other party. If nothing else, the 2 parties can then argue the relative worth or value of 2 different sets of apples, rather than arguing the comparative value between apples and oranges.

It would seem only polite that the stronger party would gracefully make the concession simply in the spirit of generosity and fair play. In this instance, such a move by the USA might indicate to Islam that the USA has the capacity to negotiate from a stance that includes a code of conduct funded by something other than simply winning or profiting.

Participant
I am a tad confused about the term "religious response," but would like to comment upon it anyway. As I read these opening comments I keep sensing that somehow we are proposing that we become "friends" with the Islamic world (Not a bad idea!) and that somehow our common religious values might form a bridge to that world. There is a common theological ground in Christian and Muslim tradition. See, for example, the writings of Thomas Aquinas and Hamid Al-Ghazali. They both focus on the importance of charity as a virtue in our development as human beings. There are also important agreements on the topics of forgiveness (!) and the achievement of peace and justice in this world.

There are many areas of theological agreement which have a direct bearing upon our potential friendship with Muslims and which can be used as part of the process of coming together. For those who have an aversion to theology, I suggest ignoring the term and thinking about the basic concepts derived its application. "Compassion" is but one example.

Participant
I think one of the major issues that we have to understand and reconcile is that we have a constitutional separation of church and state in the Western world. In Islamic countries, even those with a secular government, this separation does not exit. From the point of view of the Islamic clerics, there is no such separation in an Islamic country such as Iran. In Egypt, Jordan, etc. with secular governments, such separation is temporary at the discretion of the clergy. If the interests of the Muslims are in danger, the clergy reserves the right to intervene, as they did in Iran. This is the principle of Velayat-e-Faghih, which Khomeini invoked when he took over the government in Iran.

Participant
Thanks, Farhad, that certainly is a major issue. I wonder if it isn't possible to transcend the issue rather than attempting to argue or debate which side is right? Or trying to convince the other that what we think is best for everyone? That is one reason I thought about our religious commonalties. Those mutual values and beliefs might provide a platform for interactions which could move us away from violent conflict. I think I understand the aversion many have toward linking political discourse with religion. There are good reasons for it. Nonetheless, we must come together at some point and this may be one which works for both sides.

This world we live in is obviously more than its physical characteristics. It is an ongoing process in which we must all to some degree share a responsibility to preserve it. WE need to be friends, all of us. Simple? yes! But nonetheless true. Where do we begin this friendship?

You may recall when--early in his career-- Muhammad had a big problem in Mecca. The power elite wanted him and his followers out, dead if possible. He made a decision to send a small group of key people to the Christian kingdom of Abyssinia. The Meccans sent a couple of very wise ambassadors to bring them back--probably for execution. There ensued a lively conversation which was finally resolved when the Abyssinian king asked Ja'far to tell him about the Muslim faith in detail. So we have a Muslim explaining his religion to a Christian king. What happened? The Christian recognized a remarkable similarity between the two "theologies" and offered his friendship. Now can't we learn something from this bit of history?

Participant
Tom, your strategy is based on a sound psychological principle, reverse the flow of communication, listen. A powerful change agent. Coupled with another principle from the field of persuasion--people change when they are talking--means that we can do better if we get them to tell us about themselves, and about us. If we are sincere in our inquiry, then both sides have a chance to change in a positive direction.

By the way, welcome to this discussion, Tom. You have been with us in other conferences, where I have introduced you, but the composition of this group may be different enough to warrant another brief introduction. Tom, a prominent sociologist and former chairman of the sociology department at San Diego State University, is an old hand at WBSI, directed our studies of poverty in the sixties, and continues to work with us. He also teaches social psychology at Point Loma Nazarene University.

Participant
You may have wondered what happened to Patty Petterson, our conference leader, after making her opening statement. Two days ago she had a hip replacement, is doing fine, and will resume her leadership of this conference in a day or so.

Participant
Tom: It is a great pleasure to be with you in this conference. I enjoyed reading your recent post, and the strategy Muhammad employed in relating to Christians. There is, however, a fundamental difference between the Muslims of Muhammad’s era and the fundamentalist clerics that have terrorized millions of Muslims into submission today. They are a strange mixture of total moral corruption, fascism and totalitarianism that use violence systematically as the only means of enforcing their executive power. They have created a negative force, much like a black hole, that sucks all creativity and positive thought and action, and leaves nothing for people.

An example is government supported, and sanctioned prostitution that has devastated a generation of Iranian women. Anyone can be wed for a limited amount of time (usually half an hour) by an Islamic clergy! The clerics are also heavily involved in drug trafficking and ensuring that more young men are addicted every day. They put any Mafia family to shame. No Mafia operation in the U. S., or anywhere else for that matter, enjoyed an annual capital infusion of $20 billion dollars a year. That’s what the clergy make in Iran form selling oil. The entire oil income is invested in promoting international terrorism, prostitution, drug trafficking, and suppressing journalist, students, and progressive clerics domestically. Iran that sits on an ocean of oil imports gasoline for its domestic consumption!

Engaging in dialogue with the clerics, at least in Iran, is analogous to inviting Stalin to a debate and hoping that he would modify his views on totalitarianism. Islam in the hands of clerics today is nothing more than a means of business. It is devoid of any spiritual or religious significance. It is only used to suppress people as brutally as possible, and submit them to the will of the ayatollahs. We need to have a realistic, and sober view of what is taking place in Syria, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, etc. to be able to develop a practical policy towards those who use violence with no remorse as the only means of enforcing their policies.

Participant
Fred, would you say that bin Laden and the leaders of Al Qaeda would also be immune to communication that was religious in its content? Or is their religious commitment as subordinate to their other goals as it is for the clerics you describe? Is there an approach to any of them, involving communication, that holds any hope for you? Is there a carrot to offer?

Participant
Some time back, in my # 9,11,13, there was some discussion about my belief that there is an incompatibility of religion and government. I failed to make my point understandable. But in today's Sunday Times there is an op ed page article by Tom Friedman which says with his expertise what I failed to do. I would be most interested in other reactions to it, and especially Farhad's.

I won't try to paraphrase Friedman, but here are a few sentences: (Friedman is quoting Muslims in these remarks).

"We want a secular constitution. That is the most important point. If we write a secular constitution and separate religion from state, that would be the end of despotism and it would liberate religion as well as the human being."

"Secularism is not blasphemy. I am a Muslim. I am devoted to my religion. I want to get it back from the state and that is why I want a secular state."

"The problem of the Middle East cannot be solved unless all the states in the area become secular."

Participant
Making all the states in the Middle East secular, when even Israel is not, is a tall order indeed. Ironically, Iraq was just about the only secular state in the region.

Participant
Just an observation re: Sandy's suggestion in #5 regarding bulldozing of houses that contain arms. I wonder what would happen if we tried to do that in the U.S.?

Participant
Don -- I strongly believe as you do that states need to be secular, but I sympathize with a fear of moral laxity. Is there anyway to take some of the moral concepts that are common to all religions and use those as the guiding principles for secular rulers?

Participant
Mary, I think the research comparing atheists with believers show the atheists to be at least as likely to observe moral principles in their actions. Iraq, the only secular state in the Middle East, is not responsible for the terrorists. They are religious fanatics. And the deadly travesties in the theocracies are just as monstrous as any we know about from godless communism, Nazism, Iraq or other secular societies.

Just because you know me to be morally lax is no reason to condemn all secular folk! (g)

Participant
Yeah! But I think you miss Mary's point. If some of the moral pillars of religion -- ANY religion -- were to be written into a secular constitution, then the morality-based fears of a secular state might be reduced.

After all, our constitution and Bill of Rights serve that same purpose in many ways.

Participant
Mary: I agree with your suggestion that moral principles could (I would even say should) be used as guiding principles for rulers and citizens. Moral principles can be openly discussed and revised with changing conditions. Religious beliefs cannot.

Dick: I also agree with your inference that Israel should be secular. And of course this would also be a tall order. But there is not much about seeking a peaceful world that is not a tall order!

Participant
Perhaps I've misunderstood Fred. Isn't he saying that religion is not the problem - merely one vehicle used to control? If so, then how would secularism alleviate the basic state of affairs? From Carl Rogers' point of view, how best to treat with a violent madman who is free to walk the streets?

Participant
Hello, everyone. I'm sorry to have been absent from the discussion for so long. I'm recuperating well from my surgery and at last feel coherent enough to join in. Thank you all for your thoughtful comments about Dan's proposed strategy. He suggests that the U.S. express their willingness to help Muslim nations achieve "a just and revitalized Islamist future" in exchange for curbing of terrorism. There's no doubt about our desire to decrease terrorism. But will our own current political/economic/religious agenda really allow us to relinquish control in areas which may be important to Islamists but threatening to our own self interests? And, by the way, who is it that we should be trying to communicate with? Dan suggests the "pragmatists in the Islamic world." In Farhad's #9 comment above, he portrays a dismal potential for a receptive clerical audience.

Participant
I'm inclined to think we can and should achieve a great deal by supporting democracy, and also by making it clear that democracy involves a good deal more than just electing government officials. It minimally includes some human rights, including rights of minorities. There can be (and are) governments that do have fairly good human-rights policies without being completely secular.

Participant
Walter: It seems to me that "supporting democracy" implies that we give aid to a nation that already has expressed a desire, backed up by a substantial majority of its citizens, to be a democracy. I would support that.

But promoting democracy in a nation that doesn't already desire it, as we are trying to do in the Middle East, seem to me to be proselytizing, anachronistic, and not very successful. Not that I might not like to have this our policy if it would be successful, but I don't think it can be. I think we have set back the spread of democracy many years by our recent action.

Please explain to me why I am wrong :). I promise to keep an open mind and would be grateful to you if you can.

Participant
"Democracy" -- a word that gets kicked around a lot with each reader using her own meaning.

Walter touches on what seems to me to be the most understated requirement: "It minimally includes some human rights, including rights of minorities. Emphasis added, I hope.

The "Tyranny of the majority" is a common failing in countries that would like us to believe they have embraced "democracy"

Previous Page        Next Page

top