Islam: The Muslim World and the West
Perpetual Jihad, Reverse-Violence, War and Suffering –
or Mutual Restraint and Accommodation.
Bilateral Fundamentalism – or Gradual Reform
Confrontation – or Idea Exchange
What Future?
*
Analysis and a Proposal for an Approach
080708
Click on “Download” to view the entire essay in Word for Windows
Abstract
The Muslim world and the West were in competition for most of the last 1,400 years, but, lately, in an increasingly violent way. Specifically the Muslim world knows the term “martyr” for somebody who sacrifices his own life for the protection of Islam and the interest of Muslims (while the Christian “martyrs” of historic times were passively suffering merely for “civil disobedience”, refusing to offer religious sacrifices to the emperor, and for upholding their faith).
In recent times, Muslims, including Palestinians, became increasingly identified with violent acts in the pursuit of their religious or national goals everywhere in the world.
In consequence, “War on Terror” [1] became the wrong paradigm of the American president George W. Bush and his allies in a mainly military response to Muslim violent aggressiveness in too many parts of the world, especially after the attack on New York City and Washington of September 11, 2001. In addition, the relation between the Muslim world and the West has been burdened for too long by the Palestinian problem. Most Israeli governments (but not all Israelis) have believed that military suppression of the Palestinians is necessary for the security, even survival, of their nation. They have been largely supported by all recent U.S. administrations.
Some Palestinians, especially among the refugees, don’t want peace without return to their land, not ever wanting to give up their homeland, especially without what they consider adequate compensation.
But the Muslim and Palestinian “terrorists”, considered as such from the Western perspective, fight, in their own minds, for freedom, dignity, the teachings of the Qur’an, and for a “fundamentalist” cleansing of their lands – against Israel and America, who are perceived as the centers of evil. Violent groups with virulent philosophies have emerged.
Additionally, the Sunni-Shiite “civil war” and some intra-Shiite conflicts in Iraq had caused much suffering, instigated by Al Qaeda and Iran. The rebuilding of Iraq (at American expense or by the export of oil) and the rebuilding of Afghanistan are painfully slow and improved in Iraq only as the Awakening Councils of the Sunni supported law and order. In Iraq one must suspect Al Qaeda, some Iraqi politicians, and neighboring Iran as the trouble mongers. But the culprits in Afghanistan are the warlords, opium traders, and also Al Qaeda – all pursuing their own power objectives more than acting for the benefit of the people.
As a consequence of these events, not only America’s reputation, but also that of Islam and of all Muslims worldwide, has suffered greatly. The world now considers Islam as a violent-prone religion given to the suppression of civil rights, mainly those of women.
What can be done? Confrontation of Muslim violence primarily by Western military force does address the symptoms of the conflict but it will not lead to a resolution of the deeper causes of the conflict. As in other cases of fanatical radicalism, a better understanding, one based on more intelligent analysis and actions, is needed to address not only the causes and mindset of violent extremism and the sometimes devious driving force behind them, but also the insensitivity and/or military mindset of the West.
In both situations, that in Iraq and the one in Afghanistan, the true interests of the local populations are deplorably neglected. In either case, the vast majority of the world’s Muslims consider the violent ruthlessness and damage inflicted by Muslim jihadists to innocents, lately mostly to Muslims, as un-Islamic and, possibly, in violation of both the letter and the spirit of the Qur’an.
However, there was, and still is, a surprising lack of forcefulness in exposing and confronting this deplorable situation by internal forces in the Muslim world – by the people, their political leaders, and, especially, by the all too often disappointing Muslim clergy. The clergy are often seen quite visibly as fomenting further violence but hardly ever in condemning its misguided direction and the vast misery it triggers. Selective reading of the Qur’an is used to justify every extreme view. Authoritative resolution of Qur’anical contradictions is difficult, especially in the Sunni part of the Muslim world where no clear theological hierarchy exists.
The world at large looks at this predicament in the Islamic world not only with compassion for all the innocent victims, but also with considerable lack of understanding or, at times, with cynical criticism of Islam and the unbelievable counter-productivity of its functioning.
Basically, the visions and goals for the future of both cultures, the West and the Muslim world, must be clarified and harmonized to reach a durable and fair peace in this world – for the benefit of all people and in the spirit of all religions.
The quest for peace must include some mutual, factual accommodation. At the same time, this quest must include changing some parts of the mental culture on both sides.
The West has to end its military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan – and may have to restrain its political imposition of western “democracy” – and its economic aggressiveness; but, mainly, the West also must find a fair peace and promising future for Palestine and its refugees now.
In the Muslim world, internal forces (and only they can do this) must accomplish the necessary mental change away from an often inhumane and counterproductive violence (in so many parts of the world) or a medieval and truly un-Islamic suppression (see, for example, the killing of arbitrarily designated “apostates”, of Christians, or the far too many “honor killings” of women). A mental change of the Muslim world must lead to humanely peaceful solutions and progress (see some specific thoughts below). Occasionally, the West could provide subtle encouragement, support, and reward.
The important question arises whether Islam will ever be capable of even subtle theological evolution into a modern world – where not only America and Europe, but also China, India, and Russia dominate with their economic progress based on technology, science, and individual innovation?
What could be the first steps? Some fair adjustment of important inequities or irritants must swiftly take place, on both sides. Mainly, idea transfer in both directions must be facilitated, as was once possible in more productive historical times. In such an approach, one must distinguish in the West between present political leaders and the people at large and, in the Muslim world, between hard-core violent extremists, religious fundamentalists, sympathizers in the population at large, inert masses, Western-influenced elites, various power cliques, and the clergy. The West must reconsider its generous support of corrupt and authoritarian Muslim governments.
It is important to note that the problems between the West and the Muslim world extend beyond accusations of “imperialism” and “terrorism”. Many parts of the Muslim world suffer from not having found a viable approach to the modern world and participation in its benefits. Too many Muslims in the world are counted among those who greatly lag behind in terms of economic and political progress. Many Muslims are confused and upset by what the modern world brings – now penetrating their world irreversibly due to modern communication and economic globalization.
Internal initiative must be shown within the Muslim world, and assistance must be given, for reforms that would allow the religion of Islam, its religious leaders, and the Islamic nations to find a positive path into the future and a beneficial place in the modern world.
A path must be – and, actually, may be – found that will allow followers of the Qur’an to respect the civil liberties and human rights of all people, including those of women, followers of different interpretations of the Muslim faith, and people of different faiths – and to become shining lights to the world in altruistic ethical behavior rather than merely in headscarf observation and narrow morality of appearance, ritual, and consumption.
The West must also find a way back to the “moral high ground” it always aspired to occupy. Military interference must be ended and also most political interference – respecting some of the beneficial traditional structures of different Muslim societies. The aggressive commercial distribution of images of indecency and violence emerging from Western entertainment producers, media, and the public behavior of its elite must be restrained. Most urgently, a fair accommodation for the Palestinians must be found.
An analysis of historical precedents can lead to an approach, as described in the following chapters.
Detailed Discussion
- Introduction
- Historical precedents and developments
o Regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict
o Regarding the Muslim world and the West
o Regarding pure Islam and the Western way of life
- An Analysis of the present situation, Israel, and the present virulent Islamism
o The present situation: Israel
o The present situation: Palestine
o The present situation: The Muslim world at large
- An Approach to the future, possible solutions
o The Israel-Palestine conflict
o The causes of terrorism and the facilitation of Islamic reform
o An emphasis on a change of mental cultures
- Conclusions
- A Footnote on possible religious reform in the Muslim World
- A Footnote on possibly redirecting the zeal of Muslim “terrorists” or would-be “martyrs” toward more benevolent activities.
.
.
Introduction:
.
The plight of the Palestinians will always act as an irritant to all Muslims throughout the Islamic world, stimulating anti-Western, anti-Israeli, and, specifically, anti-American violence. It was the situation in the Middle East in consequence of the Palestinian problem that led to the attack on the U.S. Marines’ barracks in Lebanon, on the U.S. embassy in Kenya, and on the destroyer USS Cole – all before the attack of September 11 on New York City and the Pentagon – which finally led to the American attack against Taliban Afghanistan – merely because it had refused to expel or surrender Osama bin Laden.
Even if all other problems between the United States and the Muslim world were solved, anti-American terrorism in the name of Islam would continue, until the Palestinian problem is fairly resolved. The security of America and, equally importantly, the long-term security, even survival, of Israel in a changing world demand a solid solution of the Israel-Palestine conflict – soon!
In a general view, as seen from the West, the Islamic world is in the midst of a trend toward fundamentalism and virulence, with frequent, targeted massacres of innocent civilians. As seen by certain segments of the Islamic world, the West is on its way toward despicable decadence and is interfering in a variety of ways with the freedom of religion of Muslims – not only in the Middle East.
Religious Muslims assume that the Qur’an (supplemented in equally important ways by certain selections of the historic sayings of the Hadith) provides specific direction for almost all situations in everyday life (as orthodox Jews receive direction from the Torah and Talmud). Therefore, these scriptures appear to the faithful as a still-valid guide for all Muslims at all times. But, on the other hand, hardly any other religious text is as open to such selective reading and divergent interpretation, and with such widely different consequences, as the Qur’an (and so is the Bible, too). Teachings of the greatest tolerance and mental openness can be found in the Qur’an, as well as admonitions to fight violently for Islam and for cruelty against the “infidel” or “apostate” (see Surah 2 “Al Baqarah”, Verses 191-192; S 4 ‘Al Nisa”, V92; S 8 “Al Anfal”, V13(!); S 9 “Al Tauba”, V5; Surah 33 “Al Ahzab”, V62; and more).
The Qur’an and the Hadith specifically suggest the killing of “apostates” (those who have left the correct path and community of Islam) – but leave open the way in which apostasy is delineated and who is entitled to determine the apostasy of other Muslims, thus leading to the widespread killing of Muslims among each other and the destabilization of society, as had occurred in Iraq (where some Sunnis and, mainly, Al Qaeda leaders have summarily described all Shiites and all members of the forces of order of the present Iraqi government as apostates).
The Qur’an strongly suggests the study of nature as a way of reaching a better understanding of Allah (see Surah 30, “Al Rum”; or Surah 50, “Qaf”). The study of nature has shown that all aspects of this world are going through a continuous evolution. But the mindset of the Qur’an (and that of the Bible, too) does not allow for the possibility of mankind going through a mental evolution, or that societies and their concerns change or become “global”, or that new mental perspectives appear in our human society – including some very good ones, such as the United Nations, the International Court, the International Red Cross, foreign aid, “Doctors Without Borders”, or, most importantly, the drive for equal civil rights and tolerance for all human beings – and other new mental perspectives.
Specifically, the Qur’an (similar to the Catholic faith and most other religious doctrines in the world) does not provide room for consideration of the important theological consequences of the scientific discoveries of “natural evolution” – or the predicted ultimate end or total dissipation and dissolution of our universe – possibly preceded by the destruction of our living conditions here on Earth through recurring natural catastrophes, ecological neglect, weapons of mass destruction, or, ultimately, solar evolution.
Such knowledge should necessarily lead to less emphasis on a life after death in a paradise that may not exist, religious dominance, or expectation of favorable interventions by Allah that may never come. But this knowledge should necessarily lead to greater emphasis on human mental growth (fulfilling the basic law and expectation of all of nature in this evolving existence), on our own responsibility for this evolving world, and on service to all of our fellow beings – mainly to reduce the still abundant suffering and to increase opportunities for self-improvement fairly and in tolerance for all.
Religious emphasis should not exhaust itself on morality in dress codes, constraints on women, and the conduct of rituals but, rather, should be directed toward altruistic ethical behavior in caring charity, fairness, and honesty in daily life, business, and politics – and toward stewardship of the natural environment entrusted to us.
In the minds of Muslims, it is specifically America that can be seen as the enemy of Islam – with its support for Israel’s occupation of Palestine, its invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, and, especially, its highly “corrupting” influence on modern youths and families all over the world. From their viewpoint, Muslims fight only defensive wars against these evil forces.
Conventional military confrontation is beyond the means of Muslim countries; thus, the alternative is guerilla warfare. Guerilla war and “terrorism” have a long tradition in many national and ideological struggles – from the 19th-century Spanish freedom fighters against Napoleon to the anarchists of nineteenth-century Europe and Russia, to the various communist movements and numerous separatists seeking freedom throughout the modern world. Was the bombing of cities in WWII not also a form of most cruel terrorism?
Israel and America have reacted to “terrorism”, as they perceive it, with necessary military force and much counter-violence. In the minds of recent American leaders, the paradigm of “the war against terrorism” was formed and this war must be won, at all cost! In the minds of some activist Muslims, however, persistent “struggle (jihad) for their freedom, ideas, and religion” will last longer and, in the end, will prevail over non-Islamic military force.
There are several errors on both sides in their approach to the conflict – and their one-sidedness has to be overcome on both sides. There also are some alternatives available to both sides that would bring better results.
Right from the outset, one must distinguish the three different, but intertwined, conflicts between the West and the Muslim world (and more between various ethnic minorities and the nations which dominate them in several parts of the world):
- The conflict between Israel and the Palestinians for control of the same land
- The conflict between the Muslim world as a whole and the West (mainly America) – also including the conflict between pure Islam and a Western way of life within their own society
- Additionally, there is still the conflict between Sunni and Shiite Muslims, mainly in Iraq, but also in Pakistan – and of both with the Kurds – and of the freedom seeking Kurds with Turkey.
.
Superimposed on these conflicts are the interests of Iran, Syria, Turkey, and other countries, including Russia and China, interested in expanding their respective spheres of power or in enjoying the weakening of certain Western powers – who, in turn, want to protect their sources of oil.
Historical Precedents and Developments:
.
historicAL precedents, Regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict:
- Sparta conquered the land of a neighboring tribe (the Helots) and kept it under military occupation, with the consequence that Sparta became a suppressive, militaristic society that did not participate in the cultural and mental development of ancient Greece. Ultimately, Sparta let itself become corrupted by the Persians and soon collapsed as a power base, still disdained by the world today.
- Colonialism, wherever it occurred in the world, was always based on the conquest of land and the subjugation, even displacement, of native populations. The colonialists did not foresee that all races on Earth, from time to time, produce great personalities and leaders (from Moses to Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King. Jr., or Nelson Mandela) who fight for and lead their people to dignity and freedom when the slightest weakness of their suppressors occurs – and it always does occur, sooner or later – at best within peaceful demographic changes.
- Apartheid in South Africa is an example of colonialism “from within”. It worked as long as British backing of the dominating minority existed; it collapsed as British support waned. This British support can be compared to the support by the Jewish Diaspora (specifically the one in America) for Israel.
- Northern Ireland was forcibly settled by the British with Scottish Protestants. The Irish have never forgotten that this is their land. Now, that British support was waning, the Irish were fighting for their perceived rights to the land. Has the struggle really come to its end? Can a peace settlement in Ireland set an example how to solve such a problem in other parts of the world?
.
In all cases, the suppression of people requires force; yet the constant use of force has a corrupting impact on the culture projecting the force. Because the availability of force is not permanent, it ultimately may lead to a “settling of scores”, even if the settling does not occur until centuries later.
If you raise a child with only a hammer as a toy – and an ever bigger one as it grows up – it will use the hammer to solve all its perceived problems. Good parents raise their children by teaching them social adjustment – still hoping that they will become leaders in the world – by knowing how to lead people successfully. The Jewish lobby and U.S. leaders have done Israel a fatal disservice in supplying it with unlimited, and superior, military power at all times – without the principal emphasis being on solving the conflict with the Palestinians, including their immense refugee problem. Israel had no chance to learn accommodation with its neighbors (or the refugees) and establish any kind of leadership in the Middle East. The nation of Israel, with its exceptional accumulation of intelligence and skill, should have become the financial, industrial, educational, and cultural center of the region – not be blamed for, and perceived as the cause for, the conflict of the Arabic world with the West.
In more recent times, two events occurred that render a reasonable resolution of the Israel-Palestine conflict more difficult. The President of Iran, Ahmadinejad, has openly declared the destruction of Israel the ultimate goal of his country, without being immediately and fully reprimanded by the supreme leader of Iran, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and his supreme council. Without such a clear position, and in a country and culture that permit deceit for religious and political objectives (as others do, too), one is led not to trust such leadership’s intentions in the future – which would render the reaching of peace in the Middle East that much more difficult.
Secondly, the very strong and almost un-suppressible missile launchings by Hezbollah deep into Israel during the recent Lebanon war (along the lines of Ahmadinejad’s intentions) will prevent the Israelis from giving up absolute military control over all the Palestinian lands along its borders, whether in the West Bank or the Gaza areas, lest they became equally threatening bases for rocket attacks, reaching far deeper into Israel. Actually, this Iran-Hezbollah missile action was a very stupid and self-defeating initiative. It will make Israel stronger and cause the Palestinians to lose any hope they have for liberation from the occupation. If you attack an enemy and don’t defeat him, you make him stronger. In a way, the same is true for Israel’s reaction to that missile attack. In the future, Hezbollah missiles will reach still farther, use better guidance systems, and be hidden even more effectively.
America and the whole world stood passively by as the above events in Lebanon broke loose – whereas an immediate reprimand and separation of the combatants was called for.
.
.
historicAL precedents Regarding the Muslim world and the West:
The historical experience of the Muslim world:
Muslim animosity toward the “infidel” and “apostate”, based on some very harsh statements by Muhammad in the Qur’an (e.g., Surah 8, “Al-Anfal”, V. 13; or Surah #4, “Al-Nisah”, V. 90), originally was not directed against the Christians or against the West, but instead against Arab enemies in Medina or Mecca. The concept of killing “apostates” originated in the very early phase of Muslim military expansion, when apostates were seen as deserters joining the enemy.
In other words, the commandment to kill “apostates” corresponds directly to the death penalty for military deserters, especially in times of war, as equally accepted by many countries in the West.
Later in the evolution of the Muslim world, however, the death penalty for “apostates” was maintained as a convenient method of mind control (in today’s China, abandoning Communism to pursue another political direction is also still persecuted, as was turning toward Communism by McCarthy in the United States).
In spite of providing detailed rules and regulations for all phases of life and society, Muhammad and the Qur’an inexplicably failed totally to provide for the succession of leadership in the Muslim world after Muhammad’s death (Christ had not provided for succession to his leadership either, except with the vague reference to Peter as the “rock” on which to build). Thus, the very early split of the Muslim world into different religious factions, as typical for all religions, could not be avoided. The Shiites, close to Muhammad’s family, insisted on a combined political and religious leadership as provided by Muhammad himself, which later led to the dominance of the clergy among the Shiites. The Sunni, originating from the political power struggle of earlier elite families in Mecca and Medina, saw a rather dynastic leadership, side-by-side with the clergy. Subsequently, the original Sunni political unity in a caliphate was dissolved into many independent nations, with Mecca remaining merely as their symbolic religious center. In our time, some modern Arab political movements attempt to reestablish a caliphate as a uniting structure of the Muslim world.
The later Christian liberation (“Reconquista”) of Spain from the Muslims (after 718 AD) did not leave a major impression on the remaining (and, by then, very large and already fractured) Muslim world – whereas the mostly violent and occasionally quite cruel Crusades, directed toward Jerusalem and Egypt from 1095 to 1270, did.
The noteworthy exception and still an important model for our time, was the “Crusade”, if one can call it that, conducted by the German Emperor Frederic II in 1228 AD, under pressure from the Pope. This German emperor, whose empire included Sicily, preferred living in multicultural Palermo, where remnants of this Roman colony of antiquity (important ruins), subsequent Muslim dominance and a more recent Norman-Viking occupation (after that Christian invasion) had formed a colorful and tolerant multicultural society. Frederic surrounded himself with learned individuals and artists from all those cultures, in tolerance and respect for all. He had become acquainted with the then rulers of the Arab world in the Middle East. When the Pope’s demand to conquer Jerusalem once more (the city had been conquered by earlier violent crusades and lost to the Muslims again) was reinforced, Frederic simply negotiated with the Arab ruler, Al Kamil (who had political and military problems of his own), and obtained the agreement to reestablish the former Christian Kingdom of Jerusalem – at least for a number of years, until the balance of power shifted back to the Muslims – all without fighting. What can today’s world learn from these personalities of history?
The Crusades, largely forgotten in the Muslim world through the centuries, have today been revived and skillfully exaggerated in the context of recent events in the Middle East. Actually, the Mongol and Turk invasions of the Middle East, after the Crusades, and the internal power struggles had far greater military, political, and cultural importance for the Muslim world in that region. The turmoil and renewed religious fundamentalist fervor of those times brought all Muslim intellectual and scientific progress to a standstill. But the eastern part of the Muslim world, reaching all the way to the Spice Islands, formerly connected only via the Silk Road, now also connected by Arab traders, began to enjoy a lucrative trade with the West.
The subsequent attack of Europe by the Muslim Turks had religious undertones, but, basically, was of an imperialistic nature (and was politically supported by France in its struggle against the German-Austro-Hungarian Empire).
As the Turkish advance collapsed at Vienna and as the Portuguese began direct trade with the East around Africa (and as the discovery of the Americas diverted European attention west), Muslim areas became a backwater of the world. The West went through the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, and the Industrial Revolution – all unnoticed by the Muslim world. Finally, the West reached such enormous superiority that Kemal Atatürk became the hero of his country when he began to turn Turkey into a modern state by westernizing it. Egypt and Iran haltingly attempted to follow – the recent dictator Hussein of Iraq (actually trying the same secular westernizing approach but under strict dictatorship!) unfortunately failed to build a wealthy, internationally important nation for the benefit of its people and the world – most unfortunately failing on account of his arrogance, nepotism, and lack of a modern world view.
In the meantime, and unexpectedly, oil brought the Arab world to the center of attention and returned it to wealth. All this wealth, though, did not lead to much Muslim political power in the world.
.
The historical experience of Europe:
It was the early aggression by Turk invaders against the Byzantine Empire that drew the Pope’s attention to the Middle East. The Crusades followed (1095 to 1270 and beyond) and left a deep impression on Europe, further emphasized by the Turkish invasion of the Balkans all the way to Vienna. As this attack was repulsed, the Ottoman Empire settled for a quiet life of trade, the arts, and general well-being in its urban centers – until European colonialism began. In Europe, a romantic view of the Muslim world developed. It became fashionable to read “A Thousand and One Nights” and to add Arabic décor to palaces and the homes of the wealthy.
Independent of, and preceding, these events on Europe’s eastern border, the Arab universities and centers of intellectual life in Spain (Seville, Cordoba, and Toledo) attracted students from central Europe. These European students not only found ancient Greek texts being studied by the Arabs there, but they discovered an open-minded outlook on learning as a forerunner and initiator of the Renaissance (including the introduction into Europe of minstrels, the revival of Greek mythology, nudity in art, and, mainly, rationality) – leading in later centuries to all those presumed “typically European” intellectual, scientific, and industrial developments.
It should be noted that the Renaissance and Enlightenment evolved not in the geographic areas of the former Arab universities (no Silicon Valley effect there). Christian Spain became the center of strongly fundamentalist religious fervor and clerical or monarchic dominance. The Renaissance and Enlightenment did evolve in areas of greater tolerance toward mental or cultural evolution (Italy, France, Germany, and England) and, later, toward industrial progress.
The subsequent industrial/scientific revolution in northern Europe had nothing to do with democracy. Initially, this revolution relied on strong protective (and more supportive) governments. The short interlude of the French Revolution did not lead to any real democracy or civil liberties until early in the 20th century, by which time the middle classes had gained more wealth, greater political weight, and the ability to travel widely – including to the newly democratic world in America. (The much older, but very small, Swiss democracy has always been overlooked by the world.)
China has become a modern model to many countries with undemocratic governments demonstrating that substantial practical, economic, and peaceful progress can be accomplished while maintaining very strict central ideological (almost religious) control – directed mainly against internal political turmoil. Actually, Europe of the 19th and early 20th centuries had already followed the same model, with the pairing of a dominating monarchy and liberal capitalism in the industrial revolution.
It is truly difficult to explain – and should lead to patience in the expectation of mental development in the Muslim world – how the humanistically educated West could then tumble – in criminal national egocentricity and shortsightedness – into two world wars, the Nazis and other ideological dictatorships – leading only very recently to a stronger commitment to peace, democracy, the rule of law, and civil rights for all.
One should also remember that voting rights for women or their freedom to attend universities, take jobs, as well as ownership of property occurred only recently in the West. Dress codes for women were very strict, too.
The West is still in the midst of a struggle between capitalism in unconstrained market economies and deeply felt social obligations within each country and internationally. There is still the need to watch out for corruption and the abuse of power in politics and industry, the latter with its additional problem of excessive executive salaries. The question of full civil rights for everyone, and the possibility of abuses in publicly exhibited immorality in all forms of public entertainment, also remain unresolved. The present, almost nostalgic return to Christian fundamentalism is an indication of these remaining, unresolved questions in the West – as is the renascent fundamentalism in the Muslim world that arose as soon as the Muslim World began to participate in, and enjoy, Western ways of life.
.
.
Regarding Pure Islam and the Western way of life:
.
In the Arab world, wealth resulting from crude oil and trade has brought local power and general Arab pride. More important has become the revitalization of Muslim religious fervor. Egyptian intellectuals (Hasan al-Banna, 1906-49, and Sayyid Qutb, 1906-66), actually influenced by the Marxist and postwar intellectual eras in Europe and the United States, have laid the foundation for activism in the young generation. The Saudi-financed fundamentalist Wahab sect, amplified by a Muslim group in India and Pakistan (the “students” = “Taliban”), supported by the evolving Al-Qaeda, has brought religious, anti-Western, and, specifically, anti-American violent virulence – supported equally by the ayatollahs in Iran – all justifying not only their religious but also their political power based on the idea (or pretense) of returning to a religiously pure Islamic society (now designated as “Islamist”).
Only lately have the Muslim states followed the Chinese model: putting the greatest emphasis on political dominance and theological mind control while fostering general economic activity and well-being based on the Western model – then quickly converting newly gained resources into military might with nuclear capability.
In comparison, it is curious to note that the modern Muslim states (the oil-rich Arab states, Iran and Pakistan) appear more materialistically directed toward power and control of their population when compared to the supposedly materialistic West’s idealistic emphasis on freedom, social fairness, and eminence of civil rights.
An important part of the controversy between the Muslim world and the West relates to questions of morality, ethics, and behavior. Although these concepts are not very clear, one can (somewhat arbitrarily) relate “morality” more to questions of sexuality, cultural taboos, dress code, or decency – while relating “ethics” more to charity, altruistic caring for others, and trustworthiness in business and politics. Using these concepts, it is regrettable that religious leaders on both sides have placed their major emphasis in their selective interpretation of their respective holy scriptures, their teachings, and their activities in society on questions of “morality” rather than putting the main emphasis on true “ethics” in this world, on the reduction of suffering and the improvement of opportunities fairly for all.
The Muslim states, like all totalitarian societies, are better at controlling (or policing) public morality in areas of sexual taboos and petty criminality than liberal Western societies can be, which depend more on personal restraint. Western societies clearly excel in individualistic, unselfish (ethical) volunteer work and charitable contributions to the needy or the public good (including the arts and the environment).
Muslim societies dream of a future leading back to the unified societies at the time of Muhammad or the early caliphs – in perceived total subordination under God and the Qur’an. Western societies strive for progress toward an open future in personal well-being and liberty, while trying to maintain basic human ethical values – in perceived pursuit of science-indicated natural evolution in the higher (spiritual-transcendental?) order of the universe and of human values.
There were always three components in the confrontation between the Muslim world and the West:
- Military force or imperialistic changes of dominance;
- Trade or commercial interests;
- Competition, or exchange, of ideas leading to cultural changes, the questioning of traditional values, and the offer of new approaches to the future.
.
.
An Analysis of the Present Situation, Palestine, Israel, and the Present Virulent Islamism:
.
The present situation, ISRAEL:
- Israel is already – or may soon face the very serious risk of becoming – a failed state.
- Israel is not self-sufficient – neither militarily nor economically.
- The existence of Israel depends upon the ongoing strong support of the United States and the Jewish Diaspora. The United States supports Israel with anywhere between 3 and 6 billion US dollars per year (depending upon inclusion of military and other help) and with advanced military technology. The Jewish Diaspora sends or directs yearly a comparable amount of funds or investments to Israel and its lobby. Are these two essential pillars of support for Israel reliable?
- In the United States, a demographic change of great magnitude is fast approaching. Already by 2050, it is expected that the White (non-Hispanic) population of the United States will be less than 50% of the total. If the political structure in the US follows this shift, it is less likely that the United States will continue to feel the same moral obligation for the protection of Israel and will be willing to divert very large funds to Israel away from the internal social needs or demands of growing immigrant minorities.
- A pessimistic prediction of world economic conditions sees a smaller role for the United States and Europe. In a declining economy, even a strong Jewish support group in the West may have substantially less funds available to send or direct to Israel.
- The increasing technological and economic competence of China and India may lead to less restraint on their side in the support of the source-countries of their ever more important energy needs with advanced weaponry.
- More advanced rockets in the hands of Israel’s neighbors multiply the danger experienced in the recent war with Lebanon. Israel’s cities may become uninhabitable.
- Before that happens, the Israeli elite and intellectuals will emigrate to save havens in Europe or Canada, thereby weakening Israel further. Many of the wealthy ones have already acquired mansions in London and more of the less fortunate ones have dual passports.
- How can Israel survive? In the present Middle East, only Turkey is an ally of Israel. Logic favors stronger economic and political contact between Israel and Europe; yet Europe will hesitate to become involved in Middle Eastern complexities, having had enough problems already with Balkan troubles. In the long run, Israel’s only hope lies in a constructive position within its own region, the Middle East, as a commercial, financial, and cultural center, using the region as its hinterland – as Beirut once did. Durable peace in the Middle East is the only hope.
- Most likely, Palestine would also go under in Israel’s final violent struggle for survival. The Palestinians are not very much liked in any of their neighboring countries.
- Israel is a nation of greatest mental, cultural, human gifts. Palestine was endowed with an ancient culture. What a most tragic prospect would it be to see these two brothers among the people of the world, Israel and the Palestinians, both succumb in a mutually murderous and suicidal embrace.
- Additionally, Israel may have to resolve increasing internal conflicts – as the contradiction between its faster growing ultra-orthodox (and also Palestinian) segment and its slower growing secular Jewish segment, each with its own concept of what Israel should be, what opportunities to use, and how to resolve its problems.
.
.
The present situation, Palestine:
- A historic mistake was made when the State of Israel was established in 1947-48. The famous homeland of the Jews – whatever remained after the early loss of the larger and wealthier Northern Kingdom of “Israel” already in 722 BC to the Assyrians – remained as a rather restricted area on and around the hills centered on Jerusalem (see the important archeological record presented in the book The Bible Unearthed by Finkelstein and Silberman, ISBN 0-684-86913-6, bringing evidence to the narrow limitations of that area). The homeland of the Palestinians (the “Philistines”) was along the coast. The founding of Israel, with the consent of the United Nations, reversed this arrangement. Now, the Palestinians are left without their most valuable and densely populated land (with agricultural lands and, especially, the economically important ports). On the other hand, Israel longs, and always will, for the reoccupation of the historical sites on the ridge of hills – now doing so still under the pretext of God’s will and needed space for additional settlements, more so in the desire to subjugate the Palestinians and to create a military buffer against resentful neighboring Arab states.
- Rich Israeli settlements with plenty of water on the hills above Palestinian misery do not offer a stable solution.
- A meandering wall through Palestine, and located on Palestinian land, is not a stable solution.
- The attempt to empty the land of Palestinians by facilitating their emigration or expulsion to Jordan, Egypt, Europe, and America will not work. Egypt and Jordan don’t want to assume even remote responsibility for Gaza or the West Bank.
- Ongoing control of the Palestinians, accepting a low level of ongoing hostilities in perpetuity (the present Israeli strategy), will require a form of occupation and occasional targeted interventions (killings), which in turn will require a permanent Sparta-like behavior – that will reflect unfavorably upon Israel. This will also render a strong Palestinian government impractical.
- Colonialism in the form of settlements has shown that there will always be a new generation among the suppressed that will take up arms – again and again – supported by Muslim idealism or hotheads (also from other Muslim countries) and other growing political powers (e.g., Iran) around the world.
- Any approach to peacemaking should start from the assumption that a certain fanatical group of Palestinians does not want a fair peace – at best, the continued presence of some Jews in a land that will be entirely Palestinian-controlled. Whenever a weak spot appears in the Israeli defense, they feel tempted to attack by small (but increasingly larger) missiles, suicide bombers, or worse and thus cause once more a massacre of as many Israeli civilians as possible.
- An approach to peacemaking should start from the assumption that some political parties and other groups in Israel actually do not want a fair peace either – at best, they want surrender by the Palestinians and their reduction to permanent, strictly controlled insignificance. It appears that whenever the Palestinians are quiet for a while, a missile strike and the killing of some of their leaders is ordered to let them run wild in vain once more, just to be more demoralized thereafter – a story well described in the method of taming a dog in Jack London’s novel, Call of the Wild. These episodes occur specifically when there is perceived temporary weakness in the American leadership or absorption with national or other world problems.
- An approach to peacemaking should start from the assumption that a fanatic, partially calculating group of Israelis does not want a “fair” peace – but, at best, a peace based on Israelis remaining in most of the growing settlements that will become part of Israel. Whenever a weak spot appears in American attention to the Middle East, as during election years or periods of international turmoil, some of those Israelis feel tempted to progress with settlements, walls, and connecting roads.
- However, and most importantly, in spite of all the above, an approach to peacemaking should start from the assumption that a clear majority of the Palestinian, as well as the Israeli population, long for a fair and permanent peace – and are quite prepared to give up much of what the extremists among their respective populations want in order to reach that peace.
.
.
.
the present situation, The Muslim world at large:
- Muslim anti-Americanism is only temporarily driven by demands for political and religious freedom in their own lands. Once the American presence in Afghanistan and Iraq has been brought to a close, only the Israeli (American-supported) occupation of Palestinian land remains – and should be fairly resolved with the highest priority.
- Consideration must be given to the Muslim claim to their important holy site just on top of the ancient Jewish Temple Mount, where, in accord with Surah 17 “Bani Israel”, Verse 2, Muhammad is believed to have been lifted by God during merely one night for the revelation of only this Surah – leading to the Palestinians’ desire to have their capital in that vicinity! (It should be noted that the holy Muslim site came about through the violent conquest of Jerusalem by the Muslims still under the personal guidance of Muhammad, the building of an important new, but possibly smallish, mosque very disrespectfully just on top of the Jewish temple site, and Muhammad’s vision of that short nightly visit – while the present and much larger mosque was built at a much later time for other political reasons.)
- Muslim anti-Americanism will still be driven by the perceived cultural impact of the modern “American” way of life (seen as economic and cultural imperialism) on traditional Islamic culture and values – too often intermingled with resentment of Western commercial influence – from Coca-Cola to the dominance of large corporations, franchise operations, international trade, and the building of oil pipelines by conglomerates – and resentment of American political/military power (see Iran’s irrational – only emotionally, but not rationally justifiable – effort to become a nuclear power – a fact that would fill all Muslims with pride – and is now leading several Sunni Arab countries to also want to develop nuclear power in balance or competition to Shiite Iran).
- Fundamentalist virulence will not change until the irritant of Western commercial superiority in their countries is balanced by some Muslim commercial or economic successes, and, mainly, not until decent openings to the modern world are presented for the increasing number of unemployed or underemployed in the young generation graduating from all the Muslim institutions of higher education.
- A certain “fundamentalist” anti-Americanism will not change while Hollywood and all other Western forms of entertainment continually project an image of violence and sexual licentiousness (while the same licentiousness is being pursued behind closed doors by too many Arabs, especially by males and the wealthy elite).
- Unfortunately, Muslims and their spiritual leaders (the same as Christians and their churches) often are more concerned with these questions of sexual taboos than with strengthening true ethical values and the behavior of unselfishness for the benefit of the poor and needy, for efficiency of society in a fight for honesty and against corruption in all its forms, and for peacemaking.
- Hamas in Gaza and, to a lesser degree, Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt (and Syria) show another development that can be found many times in history: Impositions of strict “law and order” in society combined with generous social services for the needy – but also combined with tyrannical mind control by a dominant group, lack of civil rights or freedoms, and dangerously virulent, often imperialistic external politics. The Incas offered this model of social care and militaristic expansion and the Communists or Nazis, too (the latter two started as labor movements promising to bring security and great benefits to blue-collar working families).
- There is a high risk that opium production in Afghanistan will lead to the country being permanently dominated by criminal and terrorist networks, supported by a resurgent Taliban and by Al Qaeda.
- There will be an ample supply of Muslim fighters as long as the Pakistani rural educational system consists mainly of religious madrasas, and while there is no real chance to rise to middle-class status through available education. Ample subsidies should be provided to those mullahs and their present madrasas who would add verifiable training in practical skills to their curriculum (better farming; forestry; the care of animals; repair of modern cars, trucks, and agricultural equipment; construction trades, technologies, and the sciences).
- A variety of social service activities should be organized for the young in the Muslim world, as so commonly available in the West.
- There is the present risk that the American taxpayer is tired of financially supporting an unruly Iraq or Afghanistan, and that American families no longer want to lose their loved family members for the self-destructive behavior of those countries.
.
.
An Approach to the Future, Possible Solutions
An ApproAch to the future, the Israel-Palestine Conflict:
.
- The attitude of not accommodating the many justified Palestinian human demands “under the gun” (while still under threat of terrorism and Hamas extremism) is a very unwise attitude – whereas prompt adjustment would be fair and would build trust.
- To wait for the other side to be the first with steps toward security and peace, while continuing provocative or revenge action, is equally unwise – if not criminal.
- The thought that revenge for each act of violence will lead to less violence is totally wrong. Each act of revenge violence will lead to even more reverse-revenge violence.
- To irritate the other side with continually new violence is criminal – more so, when done intentionally to prolong the conflict – as still being done by both sides.
- When two individuals beat each other up on the street (or verbally in a boardroom), you have to forcefully separate them first and let them cool down, then let them come to reason before attempting to find a solution to their quarrel.
- Since Israel’s desire for a fair peace must be doubted just as much as such a desire on the side of the Palestinian radicals, only strong intervention from the outside, from a neutral third party, could help – but this time from the United Nations, not the United States – without another veto by the latter! Forceful U.N. peacekeepers will be needed on the ground in Palestine for some time to come – specifically to prevent missile attacks on Israel!
- With the support of such U.N. peacekeepers, a strong personality may be needed to put the Palestinian house in order. Is there a recognized senior diplomat anywhere who could accomplish this task (Blair failed)? There still are too many Islamic Jihad, Hamas, and leaders of other militant organizations – and there still are too many radical Israeli politicians, sects, and militarists.
- The well-published extra-governmental “Geneva Accord” and the “People’s Voice Initiative”, both of 2003, may be the best starting points for a permanent settlement of the conflict – which should include full recognition of Israel by all Arab nations, as well as a fair resolution of the Palestinian refugee problem (possibly through generous compensation – which would be rather inexpensive when compared to the massive costs of all militaristic confrontations and their human consequences – since it is indicated that only 10% of the refugees actually want to return to land in Israel, all others wanting merely fair compensation and, possibly, attractive habitation in emptied Israeli settlements in the West Bank with prospects for economic survival and growth).
- The Arab nations have given disappointingly little political or financial support to a peaceful and fair settlement of the Palestinian problem – neither in the United Nations, nor in international politics or by international economic means (after all, they receive most of the now largely increased oil revenue). Constructive and more forceful support and financial contributions from them may be necessary in the future.
- In order to achieve a viable Palestine, the Gaza and West Bank areas must be safely and efficiently interconnected. Each one needs ready access to its own harbor (or free trade zone in an Israeli harbor) and to an airport for easy export of perishables and low-cost products. Could it be that Israel strives for the permanent separation of Gaza from the West Bank to further reduce potential Palestinian power?
- Israel should be held publicly responsible for all the Palestinian prisoners it holds – the same as America is being held responsible by world opinion for the prisoners at Guantanamo. The UN should assume greater oversight over those situations.
- Israel (not the NGOs and the international community) should provide for all the Palestinians in the occupied lands, including rewards or punishments for their behavior under international law. The necessary American and international aid to Israel and, correspondingly, to Palestine, should be decreased or increased in accordance with the lack of or progress on both sides toward a peaceful and mutually supportive cooperation – including the refugee problem.
- The Israeli settlements on Palestinian land must be transferred to the Palestinians (possibly for the settlement of returning Palestinian refugees).
- The refugees, if not allowed to return, must be fairly compensated.
- All “revenge” actions from either side must be transformed into “compensation” measures along pre-established, mutually accepted, and internationally supervised formulas. .[2]
- In general, there should be symmetry between the concessions from one side and the other, e.g., if there are remaining Israeli settlements with connecting roads on Palestinian territory, there should be corresponding Palestinian “settlements” on Israeli territory, also with connecting roads.
.
.
An Approach to the Future:
Causes of “Terrorism”, the Facilitation of Islamic Reform:
.
- The imposing of Western democracy on all Muslim lands within a short time may not be wise. One should consider the following:
o Monarchism and the following of the guidance provided by the churches was seen, until recently, as virtuous in Europe and is still thus seen by some Western countries.
o Some Founding Fathers of the American Revolution had a deep distrust of plebeian crowds.
o Mullahs are seen by Muslims as teachers and interpreters of the Qur’an and, therefore, as “moral” leaders (seldom as “ethical” leaders, see above definitions) – unrestrained democracy is seen as licentious.
o The determination of public positions by tribal meetings (as typical in the jirgas among the Pashtun of Afghanistan or the shuras of the Arabs) is a true form of democracy.
o In other words, a mixed form of governance may offer a transition into the modern world – with some elective democracy, a free press to bring accountability, social services provided by the central government, common civil rights, and family laws – leaving some importance to traditional Islamic tribal consent and leadership in local governance – combined with true ethical leadership by religious leaders (as also always desirable and not always presented in the West) – their rule being subject to public consent and not allowed to block political candidates (as in Iran).
.
- Governance is still a key problem of the Muslim world. Muhammad missed one point in his comprehensive regulations of life in society: who would succeed him, how future political successors and religious leaders were to be selected, how they were to execute their governance, and how they could have been held accountable, even deposed.
o While the functions of political and religious leadership were united in Muhammad, almost immediately after Muhammad’s death the Muslim world split into two segments – with the larger Sunni segment adopting political leadership as being paramount (leaving religious leadership subordinate and divided, without a guiding or controlling hierarchy), while the smaller Shiite segment in Iran ultimately insisted on combined political and religious leadership, leading to the governance of the hierarchically structured clergy (as in Iran today – and as once tried by the Vatican).
o It is deeply disappointing to find that in all exotic, erratic, or violent congregations of Muslims, an Imam, Mullah, or Ayatollah marches in front enticing the crowd to more fanaticism or violence (a danger that also once did and occasionally still exists in the Western world, but that is, for the most part, controlled by civil laws). The famous leader Omar of Afghanistan and some insurgency leaders of Iraq have used a religious mantle to exercise their leadership of violence – the latter by justifying the carnage of Shiites in Iraq merely by designating them as “apostates” – and all the Sunni (and Shiite) mullahs remained almost silent (rather than designating formerly Zarqawi, then his successors, and, mainly now, all the leaders of Al Qaeda as the most despicable apostates).
o A better definition of the selection process of religious leaders, a definition of their rights, tasks, and also possibilities for their removal, and the introduction of some checks and balances to their power are badly needed.
.
- Theological or religious reforms may be facilitated by various approaches:
o By theologian innovators – but they are often narrow-minded and excitable in the pursuit of their own new dogma.
o By scripture analysis (as just beginning for the Qur’an) – going back to historic and linguistic origins, veracity, and intended meaning of scriptures (as so actively conducted concerning the Bible by Christian historians, as at the University of Tübingen in Germany, and, lately, also by several Jewish historians; see, for example, R. E. Friedman’s interesting book Who Wrote The Bible? Harper & Row, ISBN 0-06-097214-9). This process should also include correlation of historic Muslim scriptures to modern conditions and needs. Also included should be a debate on contradictions in the Qur’an and the Hadith (see the unusual website http://bibleprobe.com/corruptedquran.htm, which provides information on the history of a number of such early contradictions in the Qur’an).[3]
o Most importantly, by open discussion of the “science and theology” controversy – as presently so actively pursued in the West (including the “Intelligent Design” discussion; see the essay “Intelligent Design: A Critical Analysis” – or see the essay “Theology, Astrophysics, and the SETI Project” – both on the website www.schwab-writings.com in its section on “Philosophy and Theology”). As a consequence of recognizing natural evolution (see the essay, “Evolution: Understanding Our Physical and Mental Existence” on the same website), Muslims may also have to realize that their interpretation of the concept “God”, of the human mind, and of paradise need revision based on the facts of scientific observation (as they equally have to be revised in traditional Christian faith) – hopefully resulting in greater emphasis on altruistic ethical values, charity, peace-making (tolerance), and responsible behavior by all humans here on Earth. After all, Muhammad encouraged the study of the natural world in order to learn more about God (see, for example, in the Qur’an S # 30 and S # 50 as mentioned before).
o By tolerance in the Muslim world versus other religions or different groups within their own religion (e.g., by the peaceful and tolerant Sufis, under their teacher Rumi, 1207-1273, who once were a leading group in the area of today’s Turkey, Iran and Asia) – leading to increased competition in the mental-spiritual sphere.
Specifically, tolerance must be developed toward Muslim reformist groups, as already developing underground in Iran and openly in the Muslim diasporas (e.g., among the Muslims in England, Canada, the United States, and among the Turks and Kurds in Germany). There are already such groups that openly demand the de-emphasis or outright abolition of certain Quranical commands which are in clear conflict with the values of the modern world (e.g., with universal human rights).
Ultimately, Islam must clearly abolish the demand for (or permission to) the killing of apostates. All forms of “honor killing” of Muslim girls by their brothers must be abolished, as still widely occurring in both Muslim countries and also widely in the Muslim Diaspora worldwide!
Reason and balance in religious and political behavior can come from:
o New ideas in the young generation – if not suppressed – including those advocating gender equality. The right to vote for women may add to progress, balance, and peace!
o Desire of the young for personal opportunities to develop and, often, from their travel experiences.
o The merchant class, due to their wider exposure to ideas and a practical mindset.
o The middle class, their wider mental horizon, their youngsters’ search for opportunities.
o The scientists and engineers, as they gain a different view of the world and its laws.
o General economic well-being, ownership, and culture that do not want to be mentally suppressed.
.
- The present military conflict must be transformed into a competition for ideals of human life and behavior.
- As long as the West is seen as an aggressor and an occupying force, there will be a closing of the ranks by Muslims around established leaders and doctrines!
- Only when the Muslim world again becomes more relaxed (feeling and being less threatened) will it be ready to open its mind to suggestions for change! The “Arab Human Development Report, 2003” provides excellent suggestions!
- Actions to be taken (including all those of the “Arab Human Development Report, 2003”):
o Substantially increased recognition of moderates and innovators of the Muslim world
o More prizes and awards with international prestige to moderate, innovating Muslims
o Mainly, a vast increase in the exchange of ideas between East and West
o Invitations for visits by individuals from Muslim countries to Western homes on all levels, from the White House to personal residences (and vice versa)
o Personal correspondence
o Student exchanges (not just engineers). For some Muslim individuals, exchanges may work better with Europe than with the United States. Visiting students should not be housed with their own kind but should be living with Westerners
o Sister-City programs
o Invitations to business partners to vacation in the West (and vice versa)
o Most important, culturally excellent and open-minded TV programs and internet websites in Muslim languages! (Such programs should be on the level of US “Public Broadcasting Service, PBS, and could be sponsored by great charitable individuals or the government)
o Vast political and economic support for a demographic increase of the middle class or merchant class with international connections. Their demands for freedom and order most commonly support democracy.
o Substantial emphasis on a modern school system in Muslim countries, modern curricula for boys and equally for all girls (see the outstanding school-building effort by Mr. Eroes in eastern Afghanistan: www.aid-for-afghan-children.com).
o Madrasas should be tolerated only as a private religious supplement to public schools and only where those public schools with an acceptable curriculum already exist.
o As an alternative, mullahs of madrasas could be given generous subsidies if and when they include a wider curriculum in their schools, including training in agriculture; forestry; animal-raising; repair and maintenance of trucks, cars, and agricultural equipment; practical trades in construction or product manufacturing, useful engineering skills, and the various sciences – and if or when the results of such training are tested by public standards.
o Stabilization of true economic development in Afghanistan – away from opium production and control of drug trade by criminal or terrorist elements. Industrialization would provide income to the unemployed in the cities – but would not reduce opium production by the farmers. Only attractive markets for alternative crops providing higher income to the farmers would reduce opium poppy cultivation. There are only very few such alternative crops for the dry climate of Afghanistan. The rebuilding of the war-destroyed underground water channels, the “karez”, would definitely help (or drive opium cultivation to higher ground). The import and free distribution (rather than local purchase and sale combined with financial assistance to the poor) of internationally donated wheat was and still is highly counterproductive. But as grain prices presently rise, grain cultivation will begin to substitute opium cultivation – until its price rises, too, which would revert this initially desirable trend back to opium production. Ultimately, the restriction of opium consumption (or a chemical substitute) could be the only answer. The Taliban leader Omar accomplished the termination of opium cultivation in Afghanistan, after much urging, by means of a theologically based command. Where are the Mullahs now??
o Oil income in Iraq must quickly substitute for American taxpayer support for that country.
o Military disengagement from the Muslim world as soon as possible.
.
- In order to stop “terrorism” and the killing of innocents, it is especially important to provide new and better ways to pursue a way into the future for the idealistic and disenchanted young men, who otherwise become victims of extremist preachers:
o A positive, peaceful program must be devised for idealistic Muslim youths that provides them with meaning and honor in the pursuit of their religious goals. In the West, the Peace Corps was a great accomplishment.
o Could there be a similar movement in the Muslim world, call it “New Medina”, reminiscent of Muhammad’s building of a new society in that city, directed toward economic, mental, and moral (anti-corruption) progress (building of schools, hospitals, businesses, water supplies, security, civic administration and more, in the many needy areas of Muslim cities and the world at large)? This could capture the enthusiasm and idealism of Muslim youth and direct it in a nonviolent, constructive direction – becoming an example for the world of what Islam also could or should bring. It should bring those youths greater honor than becoming so-called martyrs!
o It is an embarrassment to the Muslim world that most of the charitable and beneficial activities in their suffering areas - including the building of schools, hospitals, and caring for the poor or children - are provided by idealistic Western individuals or Western organizations, most of them privately financed from the West.
- In order to promote theological reform and tolerance, reform-minded Muslims should form and find support in groups of other like-minded Muslims. The formation of “congregations” provides the necessary critical re-affirmation and support to individuals without which their effort will fade, as experienced by all nascent religious movements in the past.
- Beyond that, it would be important that all the Muslim reform groups get organized in a common association – to obtain better international protection, gain political influence, and, mainly, increase their activism and strength.
o The granting of recognition and honor can be offered to the important lower level among all participants – lapel pins with a common new logo, for example, “M+” (for advancement of Muslim reform in the modern world)!
o Following the proven approach of other recent movements or organizations, role models of famous and beneficial reformers can be established (as “saints” of the reform movement), prizes can be publicly distributed (see the yearly Templeton Prize or Nobel Peace Prize), and M+ members attacked by their adversaries can be celebrated as M+ martyrs (as were the early Christians of late Roman times).
.
an approach to the future,
Emphasis on the change of mental cultures
.
The term “mental cultures” shall describe the phenomenon that whole societies can assume certain ways to interpret life and to set priorities for behavior. Essentially, this phenomenon is based on the human brain’s adaptive functioning in assuming valuations and preferences for thought patterns within large groups of connected individuals (cultures).
These patterns change slowly in the course of a society’s history; but they can change for individuals within a very short time, as when they emigrate and become integrated in a different society or when new mental cultures take root in their environment. The virulent Vikings of centuries past became the pacifists of modern Norway and Sweden. Europeans have gone through much belligerent turmoil over the last three hundred years, while their American relatives lived more or less peacefully together. Europe of the early 19th century was emotionally romantic; then, a hundred years later, it became militaristic and capitalist.
All these mental cultures were an expression of precisely the way large segments of the respective populations thought, felt, and behaved in those respective times. It is often the vociferous segment, whether the majority or not, whether tolerated by the silent segment or not, that appears to dictate the mental culture of the day.
In some parts of the present Muslim world, the vociferous segment of the populations seems to indicate a highly emotional, aggressive, self-sacrificing dedication to religious dominance mixed with nationalistic pride that often reaches a state of irrational frenzy, especially among young males. This selectivity in goals and behavior indicates a psychosomatic connection. Unscrupulous political leaders abuse this segment of the population, to their benefit. The silent segment of the population – whether a majority or not – stays on the sidelines, either in fear, because they are blackmailed, or by conversion to the new mental culture.
In hindsight, the world often wishes it had stopped aberrant mental cultures early in their development, as in the case of the Nazi and some Communist movements around the world, especially when they became dangerous to the rest of the world. We fear that some Muslim countries suddenly may want to acquire weapons of mass destruction. We also fear that they may make these weapons available to terrorist organizations worldwide.
How can dangerous mental cultures be stopped or changed in their development?
More reasonable countercultures usually are too meek and civilized to prevail.
Is there a more forceful approach?
Killing a Viking chieftain did not stop the broad Viking movement. But killing Hitler put a final end to the Nazis, as did Stalin’s death to Communist abuses or Pol Pot’s to those in Cambodia. The broad-based revolutionary and violent movements of the 1960s that raged in several Western countries did not come to an end until some of those cells were broken up and their general failure became apparent to the public. In other words, movements that are narrowly focused on a leader can be stopped through elimination of that leader. Broad-based mental cultures, however, do not change until some of their most violent cells are eliminated - and, most importantly, not until the general public realizes the uselessness and danger of their objectives and methods as did occur in some parts of Iraq and, hopefully, one day in Pakistan.
The violent movements of the Muslim world will not stop until their most obvious justification disappears (occupations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Palestine), their most violent leaders are eliminated (bin Laden and his assistant, Al Zawahiri, the former Taliban leader Omar, and some warlords or drug traders), and more productive approaches to the future for the Muslim people have proven themselves – see the recommendations above. Any one of those measures alone, such as the elimination of the most violent leaders, will not help and could make a broadly based mental culture even more violent. Nor does providing a positive approach to the future help, without at the same time eliminating the violent leaders.
Preferably, a positive reformer (unfortunately, Al Sadr did not qualify himself for that) with a certain charisma will appear or will have to be found. He or she must then be strongly supported, which, in turn, can lead to positive evolution.
To bring about a change of the mental culture, a new leader must be able to generate enthusiasm for the new mental direction, for a moderate form of Islam open to the modern world and ready to accept reform. This person must be a good organizer, one capable of forming cells of activists for the new culture in many places in society.
A better future must become visibly credible to the people and must be reached step by step. (For some basic reading, see the older book by Gustave Le Bon, La Psychologie des Foules, and the somewhat newer and excellent description of the development of mass movements in the book by Eric Hoffer, The True Believer.)
.
.
Conclusion
- American security, world security, and Israel’s own security or even survival, demand that no more time be lost in the fair settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – equally demanded by a majority of both peoples. The ill-managed Gaza pull-out and some reduction of settlements in the West Bank area are not enough.
- The Israeli occupation of Palestinian land must be brought to an end as soon as possible. In addition, a fair solution must be found for Palestinian access to a certain part of Jerusalem, to ports or airports, and also to water. Otherwise, there will be no end to escalating international terrorism against America and its allies, and Israel. Only a certain well-being, adequate job opportunities, and a wide middle class among the Palestinians will bring them to accept Israel, their situation, and peaceful behavior.
- The American military presence in Afghanistan and Iraq must be brought to an end as soon as possible (possibly by first eliminating bin Laden and his group and then using security forces from other Arabic states – both Sunni and Shiite). Otherwise, international terrorism against America and its allies will rage on endlessly; nor will there be readiness for a change of mental cultures or reform in the Muslim world.
- The suppression of opium production in Afghanistan must be given high priority (e.g., by subsidies for wheat, fruit tree, ethanol-production, or other useful plantations, as in the United States – and, ultimately, demand must be reduced), oil revenue must be urgently increased in Iraq.
- The Pakistani madrasas (and those of other countries) must be elevated to the level of proper skill-training schools.
- Every effort must be made to improve the commercial, economic, and international success of a growing Muslim middle class, to offer primarily a viable future to their unemployed young generation in the modern world with a wide international outlook.
- Every effort must be made to increase the exchange of ideas between the West and the Muslim world, possibly with preference given to contacts between young Muslims and Europe and between established Muslims and America (and vice versa).
- Programs must be established that capture the idealism and sense of pride of Muslim youth and to direct it in a nonviolent constructive direction – for example, a “New Medina” Corps, as described above – providing not only practical, constructive progress to Muslim areas, but also great honor to its members.
- All the Muslim theological and cultural reform movements should unite in a mutually supportive association and increase their activism.
- A charismatic leader and good organizer must be found who can bring about a change of the mental culture in the Muslim world and possibly initiate some theological reforms.
.
.
A Footnote on Possible Religious Reform in the Muslim World:
The Qur’an presents itself as the final expression of God’s rules for mankind (together with at least the most commonly accepted Hadith) and is very detailed. This appears to leave no room for further reform. Yet the fact is that many Muslim countries have progressed to various forms of religious reform – from superficial habits such as giving up head scarves to more fundamental ones concerning the living and bringing up of families in the modern world of the “infidels”, in their Diaspora.
Thought must be given to how religious reforms may be accomplished – for example, through:
- Selectivity in emphasis on various statements of the sacred texts (as is common among Christians – just look at the Christian “Confessions of Faith” in the Bible)
- New interpretation of word meanings in view of evolving language (also of Arabic)
- Introduction of new concerns that were not addressed in the original texts
- Demonstrating how certain narrow scripture statements were abused in the past
- Leading certain narrow scripture statements “ad absurdum” under modern conditions
- From such a breach, arguing in the gray zone of life’s diversity toward a more liberal interpretation under “new conditions” in the modern world [4]
- Reinterpreting loyalty to Allah as not merely being submissive to the mullahs, but reading of Allah’s will through an understanding of nature (see, for example, Surah #30 and #50) – leading to greater mental independence and to acceptance of personal responsibility in order to make this a better world – with less suffering and more opportunities fairly for all – in accordance with our emotional needs and to facilitate a better-functioning society.
.
To be successful, any reform movement needs certain aspects:
- Most importantly, a charismatic leader (hopefully not Moktada Al Sadr)
- A clear mission
- Strong emphasis on altruistic ethics and on “law and order”
- A certain enthusiasm – more than just intellectual conviction
- The formation of congregations of like-minded members supporting each other and providing daily guidance
- Bringing positive results, attracting protection of the mighty or support of the masses, or both
- Certain controls to guard against splitting into many new subgroups
.