Rethinking Islamist Terrorism
Dan Yankelovich

Participant
Dan has proposed (see Comment #43) that in order to address Islamic terrorism we "extend the hand of friendship...to Muslims of many varieties," even those whose hoped-for brand of democracy is not ours. In the case of Iraq, there appears to be agreement among our participants that, whatever we do, support of an autocratic regime is not appropriate, and imposing our own vision of democracy will not work. If we accept the importance of ensuring that Iraqis themselves feel ownership of their "democratic" government, with whom should we be collaborating for best effect at this point? The interim govt. (which we are in charge of)? Islamic clerics, who wield considerable influence? The Iraqi public (at this point how does one determine their wishes separate from more outspoken factions?)?

Establishing a "democratic" government and curbing terrorism are clearly intertwining goals. As Dick noted (see Comment #46), this week's bombing and the increased observations that terrorist factions are gaining strength, create a new sense of urgency. (Incidentally, in Goldsborough's Op-Ed piece yesterday (San Diego Union), he cautioned against loose use of the term "terrorist;" as abhorrent as the actions were to us, in the perception of many Iraqis, and many Muslims in general, defense against occupation is not terrorism.

But, taking us back to the task at hand, how could Dan's proposal to utilize a religious response (also see Tom's and Don's comments in #s 38 and 40) actually be put into effect as step toward soothing the motivations of "terrorists?"

Participant

I agree with Dan that we need to open a dialog with various groups in the Muslim world, not only to understand them better, but to present the case of the West better to them. In prior ILF discussions, I have argued that much of the misunderstanding stems from the fact that the primary means that the Muslim world learns abut the U. S. is through Hollywood movies, and Rock and Roll music. (Except Voice of America that broadcasts Jazz, but that’s another story).

However, to argue that what happened in Algeria would not have happened without the U. S. supporting Algerian generals, or what happened in Iran in 1953 would not have happened without the help of the CIA is giving the U. S. government too much credit. The generals in Algeria would (and in the case of Iran are right now) kill and imprison people who support democracy with or without the help of the U. S.

It is also true that the U. S. has supported corrupt regimes in the Middle East, but again thinking that without the U. S. support those regimes would not have been corrupt is missing the point. The current government of Iran has excelled in all aspects of corruption under a so-called religious regime without any help from the U. S.

In high school, as I might have mentioned earlier, we were required to study 2500 years of Middle Eastern history. Every high school student knew then, and perhaps knows now, that the Islamic world had a golden era between 1100, and 1700. As the West ascended and modern science took shape, pre-modern science that was primarily conceptualized by Islamic scholars found itself to be marginalized. For the Islamic mind a holistic universe made sense only. The secular atomistic modern science was an antithesis of the holistic sacred knowledge revealed to man by God. Further, Islamic world view was systemic. Man was part of the system, and not outside of it trying to conquer it, and change it. As such, observational sciences, for example astronomy, and its ancillary mathematics was the center of attention. Intervention in the sacred universe created by God was not what Islamic world view prescribed. The rapid growth of modern technology and its success in solving ordinary problems by direct intervention in nature of food, sanitation, housing, and transportation was based on a world view that was alien to the Islamic mind. Until 1700, if you studied medicine in Paris, you were studying manuscripts of Islamic scholars. By 1800 all of that had changed.

To hold the West responsible for the utter decadence of the contemporary Islamic world, and its inability to reconcile with modernism, or ascend beyond modernism and prescribe a superior project will not be accepted by any honest contemporary Islamic scholar. "We" [I am speaking now as one who was born and raised in an Islamic country now] know that we are in a period of decadence. We know that we need to make Islam competitive in the market place of ideas. Such a self-reflection and self-analysis is the center of the attention of forward looking Muslim scholars. The role of the U. S., frankly, is as marginal here as the role of a psychiatrist who is helping someone to overcome a 300 year-old depression.

Participant
But could the US play that psychiatrist role, Fred?

Participant
Dick, I think a psychiatrist would be an appropriate role for the U. S. government, and for projects such as the one that Dan is proposing to play. However, this would be one role among many.

There are several other roles for a project such as the one that Dan is suggesting. For example, in a dialog with the representatives of the Islamic world we need to present our understanding of Islam to them and assure them that we recognize the religion as a legitimate one in par with Christianity and Judaism. Recent pronouncements of religious right in the U. S. in calling Islam a terrorist religion, for example, have not helped the situation very much to say the least!

Also, as I might have mentioned in other discussions, the legitimate Islamic clergy have to come to a better understanding of the people of the United States as a deeply religious and hard working people. The image that they have now of what transpires in the daily lives of the Americans is distorted by movies, and other forms of popular arts.

Once we have established a basic trust, then we can open a deeper and a more serious discussion about the shortcomings of Islam. But by the same token, we have to be ready to respond to their criticism of how the state of Israel (as a religious state) is behaving, and how some churches are reacting to their recent moral crises.

Last, but not least, we have to find a way to reconcile a pre-modern view of the world, with an emerging post-modernism. Islam, in the final analysis, cannot accept a modern view of life. Muslims see invasive treatment of nature under the banner of a secular corporate regime, for example, unacceptable. A dialog with Islam ought to include the formulation of a post-modern paradigm in which man would not be the final arbiter, and God would be brought back into the world-view and be given a proper role. The emerging post-modernism, should also reconcile anomalies of utter poverty and destitution in certain parts of the world. As long as what Franz Fanon called the "wretched of the earth" live among us, we will have problemss with terrorism, and violence. They simply have nothing to loose, not even their lives, as indicated by suicide bombers

.

Previous Page        Next Page

top