There are moderates in the Muslim corner of the ring, but the evidence presents itself that moderation and moderates have but limited influence.
It seems that the terrorism phase of the war between cultures that the Islamists have declared represents a dual challenge. An obvious one is on the level of connecting violent action with fitting counter action. If instead of discussing what “fitting” might mean (the way the meaning of “is” was) till paralysis sets in, the targets of Jihadist violence could inject all their means into the struggle, the conflict would be of short duration. However, their institutions and laws make procedures such as alluded to, difficult to unleash. The limiting inhibitions stem from the political culture of “successful societies.” The civilizations that need to be defended amount to a big target, being diverse and notably not uniformly Western or Judeo-Christian, nor are they geographically clustered. Meanwhile, keeping them effectively from harm is complicated by the confusion of the easily bewildered populations whose experience is limited by life in a democratic context. The only sporadic concern for politics creates a badly informed public which aggravates the problem. If the foregoing is of merit, then the main challenge to respond effectively so as to protect a way of life, is to recognize who the foe is and especially to identify his ultimate goals.
Here an example. Alternative 1. If, as often alleged, the goal and the cause of Jihadist violence is a perceived lack of Arab sovereignty over their countries, the remedy might be a general withdrawal from that region. Thereafter, the therapeutic treatment of ruffled collective feathers is, indeed, likely to enhance pacification. Alternative 2. You consider evicting foreign influence to be a mere step toward the ultimate goal of uniting, through a physical struggle, the world under the Prophet’s banner. In this case — while some might shake their multi-cultural heads — the RX appropriate in the first case will make the malady more severe.
One hears a lot from established and newly minted experts and serious as well as trivial observers equipped with and lacking an ax needing a grind-stone pronouncing on what “real” Islam prescribes and proscribes. Is terrorism mainstream or is it an overreaction of extremists? Is the violent element a dwarfed minority or a significant minority that operates in a value system which creates an affinity for violence? To discover the accurate answer that is logically the premise of a fitting reaction, the views of the nameless insiders regarding the commandments of their religion should also be given attention. Ultimately, what the average person thinks his party, movement or religion is all about, will determine the practical application and comportment of the group that holds the faith. Those who agree with this should be cognizant that they are concurring with what is apparently a controversial thesis. While perusing endeavors to dissect “the mind of Islam,” you find that often these opinions are ignored, or that the views and derived actions of those holding them are dismissed as insignificant. The discreet allusion refers to such matters as the feverish instantaneous celebration of 9/11 by the “Arab Street” (ignored) while those spokesmen who did not rejoice formulated a carefully moderated “no, not quite this way” (emphasized).
So as to correct the distortion created by the suppression of “news” that fails to fit the standard set by expectations cast in PC, I shall share with IC’s readers the translated précis of a letter to the editor. It appeared in a regional publication and was apparently submitted by a convert-through marriage now living in (moderate) Egypt.
I wish to express my regret and solidarity to the families and the victims of the assassinations of London. At the same time I also wish to remind everybody of something as all coins have two sides.
I condemn, as a Muslim, the bombings decisively for the attacks affect innocent civilians and could hit anybody. It is self-evident that as a Moslem I am against terrorist attacks because they are not compatible with the Faith and constitute cowardly acts that always hit the wrong people.
Unfortunately, as nations, the USA and Britain are not only victims but also offenders. With their troops in Iraq, innocent civilians are being killed daily with the same arbitrariness as they were in London.
It would be nice if the populations of the US and Britain as well as of Europe would be able to manifest their pity not only for European people but also for others who suffer and die just as they do — but who do so not only on one day but on all days. Once this happens people could stand shoulder-to-shoulder with their fellow human beings and remove those governments that are bent on waging war. The West defines terrorist attacks as being attacks on the civilized world. Nevertheless, to deal with arms and through war, and not with human intelligence and understanding instead of prejudices, is no proof of civilization.
Violence must have an end on both sides as violence is always the wrong way. We should take Mahatma Gandhi for our example and not Bush and Blair. In the name of Islam, in the name of Christianity and in the name Humanism.
The completion of a critical dissection of what is hidden between the lines — without an intent to deceive — can be left to the reader. What the letter does is to censure initially violence in a politically prudent manner. Thereafter the qualification of terror begins. In its course the symmetry — the terrorists do what is done to them — weakens to give way to the ultimate chiding of those who respond to terrorism.
Its negative trait is that it kills innocents. If by some definition the innocents are not quite that, the judgment might be different. The writer seems to believe that innocence exists because there is a hiatus between the people (US, GB) and their government. Given the elections of ’04, innocent Americans appear to be less innocent in their guilt than the Brits. In this context the bit about “removing” governments has an element of warning mixed to it. Do you detect a Spanish and Tagalog accent? At that juncture a second qualification of the initial outrage appears. Occasional terror in London is, as it turns out, more than balanced by a response to the daily terror of the Brits and Yanks in Iraq.
The innuendoes of the closing thought on violence are especially revealing. Let us leave the question open what Gandhi’s non violence would have achieved had not the English but the Nazis, Soviets, or, one hardly dares to say it, the Taliban ruled India. Or perhaps one should! Because it is the English and the Americans to whom Gandhi’s way is recommended. The Freudian slip of not mentioning bin Laden and his ilk next to Blair and Bush speaks loudly. This makes their guilt to consist of not accepting the role of the non-reacting victim. Such formulations might convince the suspicious that a non-violent response — in fact a non-response — to terror is being advocated here. (Violence being wrong we do not hit back. So we prove “them” historically wrong and ourselves immediately dead.) Or could it be that we are offered two standards. First, retaliation against Jihadists is wrong — violence is always wrong and if not that, at least ineffective. Second, the blows meted out by Holy warriors might be excessive and also regrettable. Still, they have a reasonable cause and serve a purpose. Which is why the circumstances that force the bombers’ hands are to be bemoaned more than their violence is to be condemned.
Of additional interest is the discernible judgment of the Editors. They considered the piece to express moderation. Fittingly, the title they gave the letter is “Deep Regret.” Well, the “deep” is so-so, while the bit about the “regret” appears impressively moderate in its measured restraint. Even so, this is what amounts to the voice of moderation from where the opinion comes from.
Indeed, there are moderates in the Muslim corner of the ring. The July 18 Fatwa issued by London Imams testifies to it. The problem resides in the fact that analogous unequivocal — or even loudly whispered — statements from Islamic locations are significantly missing. So the conclusion that presents itself is that moderation and moderates have limited influence. Therefore, assuredly, they are not and will not become in time sufficiently strong to base security policy on their sway and to expect that they will protect us against the deeds of the evildoing fanatics in their midst.
George Handlery is an historian. He has lived and taught in Europe since 1976.
Recent Comments