Dare to Speak: Islam vs Free Democracy and Free Enterprise (I)
Section 4.
The House of Islam’s Relationships with non-Islamic Nations: United States
Over the past century, the United States has supported Muslim nations in numerous ways, both privately and through government actions. It helped open up the Islamic world’s oil industry and provided billions of dollars in aid. It has provided everything from food and disaster relief to infrastructure projects and family planning. It supported the Mujahadeen’s battle to overthrow the Soviet Union’s Communist government in Afghanistan, and helped Muslims in Bosnia defend themselves against Serbian “ethnic cleansing.” Later, it protected Muslims in Kosovo when Serbs sought revenge for attacks made on them by ethnic Albanian militias. It lodged complaints against Russia for its suppression of Chechen liberators. It joined with over thirty other nations, many of which were Islamic, [1] to rescue Kuwait from an invasion by Iraq. It led a humanitarian effort to prevent the starvation of hundreds of thousands of Muslims in Somalia. It provided $350 million to victims of the Indonesian Tsunami of 2004, and $50 million to victims of the Pakistani earthquake of 2005. Yet, despite all this, the United States is hated throughout the Islamic world, and dubbed by many as “The Great Satan.”
To appreciate the current state of affairs, consider this portion of a recent article, Fewer Arabs admire the U.S., Survey Finds: [2]
[A] six-nation survey [was] conducted in June by Zogby International, a nonpartisan public opinion research firm…
According to the survey, the United States gets its best rating in Lebanon, with 20 percent of those surveyed saying they respected the United States. In Egypt, only 2 percent of residents reported positive opinion of the United States.
James Zogby, president of Arab American Institute, which commissioned the survey, said that the decline in U.S. popularity among the Arabs resulted from its policy toward the Arab world.
U.S. policy is so unpopular in the Arab world that it drags down those aspects of America that are admired: values, products and people, Zogby said. “Attitudes toward American policy are decidedly lower than it was even in 2002,”…
In explaining the decline of U.S. popularity, Zogby acknowledged the U.S. policies, particularly toward Iraqi and Palestinian issues, fueled Arabs’ resentment of the United States. But he added that many of those surveyed see U.S. treatment of Arabs and Muslims as more important than its policies on other issues.
Given James Zogby’s connection to both the Arab American Institute and Zogby International, an organization led by his brother John, and given the knowledge that the answers to survey questions are often influenced by their wording, one must wonder whether the results of the study were objective. However, regardless of whether or not one accepts the validity of this study, [3][4] it leads to the same conclusion, because both Zogby’s are highly recognized leaders of the Arab-American community, and speak frequently on the community’s behalf.
Even more frustrating than the Islamic world’s forgetfulness of the many times the U.S. has come to the aid of Muslims is their rationale for resentment: They paint any aid to an enemy, or any attack on a fellow Muslim nation, as an attack on all Muslims. The unfairness of this view stands out when one considers the many times Islamic nations have gone to war with each other in recent history.
This view is not surprising, however, if one understands that it reflects the mindset of a famous Bedouin tribal saying: “I against my brother, I and my brother against our cousin, my brother and our cousin against the neighbors, all of us against the foreigner.” While Muslim brother nations may war against each other without enraging the entire Islamic world, it is an intolerable if a “foreigner” nation does the same.
The two main American policies that have attracted Muslim outrage in recent history are its support for Israel and its attack on Saddam Hussein. If we restrain our impulse to assume that their outrage must somehow be justified, and examine their reasons outrage more closely, we can see how unjustified it really is:
U.S. Policy toward Israel. The role the United States has tried to play in Israeli/Palestinian relations is one of moderator, trying to find a peaceful settlement that does not result in the annihilation of either group. This is an extremely difficult role because of the implacability of the opponents: Palestinians consider Israel to be “Occupied Palestine” and are determined to retake the land and expel the Jews. Israel, for its part, has given up on the possibility of a bilateral settlement and has taken matters into its own hands, appropriating areas that were formerly Muslim, such as East Jerusalem, and building permanent walls to prevent movement between Israel and the Palestinian Territories. The taking of East Jerusalem, which was the Palestinian Authority’s intended capital, struck Palestinians in the heart, while the walls, which block many Palestinians from employment in Israel, struck them in the stomach.
The United States had the courage, or naiveté, to take on the role of honest broker between these two antagonists. Its reward has been universal outrage from the Islamic world. From a Muslim perspective, any attempt to mediate is unjust support for Israel. Islamic fury at the U.S. boils down to rage over America’s refusal to join with Muslims in Israel’s annihilation. From their perspective, the least America could do is abandon Israel to its hostile neighbors.
U.S. Policy toward Iraq. In today’s political environment, it is easy to lose track of Saddam Hussein’s bloody legacy as partisans debate over the Second Gulf War. Here is a quick recap of Saddam’s deeds:
Saddam’s rise to power began in 1959, with a failed assassination attempt on Iraqi Prime Minister General Abdel-Karim Oassem. After spending several years in exile, he returned to Iraq and played a leading role in the successful coup of 1968. Saddam was rewarded for his deeds with the position of Vice-Chairman of the Revolutionary Command Council. Over the ensuing years, he built an outstanding reputation as he led a successful literacy program for the nation and transformed Iraq’s health care system into one of the best in the Middle East. However, upon his accession to the presidency in 1979, his reputation darkened quickly. He kicked off his reign by accusing 5 members of the Revolutionary Council, as well as 17 other rivals, of an assassination plot, for which they were executed. In 1980, he launched a war against Iran to regain disputed territories and oil fields, and to crush the rise of Iraqi Shiite extremism inspired by the Iranian revolution. [5] During the war, he used both mustard gas and sarin gas on Iranian soldiers, as well as internal enemies. He also exerted brute force to literally kill internal opposition. At one point, he ordered a series of gas attacks on 60 separatist Kurdish villages in northern Iraq. [6] While the total number of deaths is unknown, estimates range from 50,000 to 100,000. It has been documented that over 5000 died in the village of Halabja alone. [7]
The war with Iran went on for eight years, devastating the economies of both nations and costing each side about 250,000 lives. It ended in stalemate, with the border restored to its pre-war location.
In 1990, almost immediately after the war with Iran, Saddam launched another war for oil, this time with Kuwait. Through the United Nations, the United States led a multi-national force to defeat Saddam. This victory drastically curtailed Saddam’s ability to attack both internal enemies and neighboring states. Northern Iraq was established as an autonomous region for Kurds. Additionally, large no-fly zones were created over the north to protect Kurds from Iraqi air attacks, and over the south to also protect Shiites. Despite these constraints, Saddam still managed to crush a Shiite uprising in the south, killing hundreds of thousands and burying them in mass graves. [8] As this atrocity unfolded, the United States was chastised around the world for not doing more to protect the Shiites.
After the first Gulf War, the UN established inspections to make sure Saddam Hussein could no longer use weapons of mass destruction, particularly poison gas or nuclear weapons. Saddam resisted these inspections and launched anti-aircraft attacks on the American and British planes that enforced the no-fly zones. As a result, in 1998, the weapons inspection teams left Iraq and the U.S. and U.K. began bombing Iraqi military sites. [9] In subsequent years, the UN passed several resolutions requiring Iraq to re-open its doors to weapons inspectors, culminating in UN Resolution 1441, passed on November 8, 2002. This was Iraq’s final opportunity to comply before the UN could authorize intervention by military force.
Throughout this interplay, Saddam’s government resisted, lied, complied, bullied, provided inadequate information, and engaged in games of cat-and-mouse. The resulting consternation and confusion split the UN on whether to take military action. However, the United States was determined to go ahead, and organized its own “Coalition of the Willing” to prosecute the war. It assembled a coalition of 36 nations, without UN approval, and, against the wishes of France, Germany, and Russia, rapidly attacked and overwhelmed Iraq’s military. Ultimately, it captured Saddam Hussein and began a process intended to establish democracy in Iraq.
The United States expected an outcry from the nations that opposed enforcement of the UN resolution. Those nations had extensive economic ties, both legal and illegal, with Saddam through the UN’s Oil-for-Food program, and they were quite happy to keep their revenues flowing. The U.S. also expected opposition from Iraq’s Sunni Arab population, which had benefited from Saddam’s reign. It was unprepared, however, for the opposition of Iraqi Shiites. U.S. planners assumed that the Shiites would welcome their liberators with open arms, but the Shiites greeted them with raised fists instead.
Given the power vacuum created by Saddam’s fall, an interim transitional government was needed to administer Iraq and lay the groundwork for democratic elections. Despite the obvious need for this administration, Shiite leaders almost immediately denounced the Coalition presence as an occupation and tried to undermine the interim government.
Since that time, Iraq has experienced numerous terrorist attacks and several overt rebellions. These attacks deprived Iraqis of electricity, oil money, and infrastructure, while making its transition to self-governance more difficult. Remarkably, these attacks came almost as frequently from Shiites, who had the most to gain from democracy, as from Sunnis and foreign insurgents. For example, Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr has declared that he and his Mahdi[10] Army, an independent militia, will fight American troops to the death, saying “I will keep on resisting, and I am staying in Najaf and won’t leave it till the last day of my life.” [11]
The United States has begun the final phase of its plan for Iraq. Iraq is now being led by its own native citizens, elected through democratic elections. Iraqi forces are assuming ever-more leadership in military operations, and some regions of the nation are now entrusted to them. It is clear that the United States is trying to phase itself out of Iraq without leaving chaos in its wake.
Has this progress served to quell the insurgency? Not at all. In fact, insurgent attacks have become more frequent since the 2005 elections, and have begun to take the form of a civil war.
Why has the insurgency become bloodier as Iraq moved closer to independence? Because Iraqi opposition to Infidel occupation is only the top layer of hatred. As that layer peels away, other pretexts for strife come to the surface.
A basic reason for Iraq’s internal strife is that it is not an integrated nation. It has three regions, each with its own predominant ethnic group: Sunni Arab, Shiite Arab, and Sunni (but largely secular) Kurd. Each of these ethnic groups covets Iraq’s valuable oil resources. The region belonging to the Sunnis, in the northwest portion of Iraq, once enjoyed wealth, power, and privilege under Saddam Hussein, but has little oil. The Sunni insurgents are therefore fighting for the privileges of the past. Shiite Arabs and Sunni Kurds also despise each other, but they, at least, have two things in common:
A shared hatred of their oppressor, Saddam Hussein, and for Saddam’s beneficiaries, the Sunni Arabs.
Plentiful oil resources, with which they would like to enrich their own autonomous regions.
The Shiites and the Kurds would like nothing more than to divide the oil spoils of the Coalition victory amongst themselves and then live independently of each other. In fact, the Kurds would already be independent if Turkey had not threatened war.
This point raises a question: why would Turkey declare war on the Iraqi Kurds if they declared independence from Iraq? Because Turkey fears that if Iraqi Kurds get independence, it would encourage Turkish Kurds to declare independence as well. Welcome to the tribalistic logic of the “House of Peace”!
Another facet of this culture of tribe against tribe is again unintentionally unveiled by Rashid Khalidi in Resurrecting Empire, when he chides the United States for its ignorance of Iraqi sensibilities: [12]
…Iraqis and others in the Middle East have a strong sense of history: not only do they not forget their experiences with the British occupation; they recall vividly the history of earlier occupations of Baghdad, such as that in 1258 when it was sacked by the Mongols. Bringing even a symbolic contingent of Mongolian soldiers to join the forces of the “Coalition,” as the United States has done, is a perfect example of how to trample on the sensibilities of such people.
The symbolic contingent of Mongolian soldiers consisted of about 170 people. The goal of the Coalition forces was to topple a murderous and oppressive dictator and to help the Iraqis establish a democracy. The Mongol invasion occurred 750 years ago. And yet, Khalidi claims that the Iraqis were offended. If Americans held a grudge as doggedly as the Iraqis, it would be impossible for them to engage in cordial relations with Britain, let alone Germany, Japan, Russia, Canada, and Mexico. Peace in the world would be inconceivable, just as peace actually is inconceivable in the Islamic world. In the House of Islam, almost every group of people can find an incident somewhere in the distant past to justify hatred for nearly every other group of people they have ever encountered.
As for the Iraqi Shiites, they are working to build close ties with Iran, with the goal of emulating its form of government. [13] In fact, when negotiating with the more secular Kurds over Iraq’s constitution, the Shiites pushed so hard for a more Islamic state that negotiations nearly collapsed.
Iraqi Shiites are now exerting themselves by effectively altering the laws of Iraq in ways that Sunnis find truly alarming. For example, the Shiite laws on temporary marriage discussed earlier are gaining hold, as the following article confirms:
Shi’ite temporary marriages regain popularity
By Solomon Moore, LA Times Staff Writer, January 15, 2006
NAJAF, Iraq —…Mutaa, a 1,400-year-old tradition alternately known as pleasure marriage and temporary marriage, is regaining popularity among Iraq’s majority Shiite Muslim population after decades of being outlawed by the Sunni regime of Saddam Hussein.
…
Shiite clerics, including Iraq’s highest religious authority, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, have sanctioned mutaa…
…
Shiite and Sunni sects disagree on the lawfulness of mutaa…many Sunni authorities regard it as a sexual relationship outside religious behavior.
…
Even though the practice quietly persisted during the Hussein regime, temporary marriages have experienced a resurgence in Iraq since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion…
[Sunnis] see that as a sign of rising Shiite influence in political and religious affairs and of the explosion of cross-border traffic between Iraq and the Shiite theocratic state of Iran, where mutaa is even more popular.
…
Women’s rights activists call mutaa an exploitative arrangement…“The clerics issue fatwas condoning this practice that allows men to treat women like prostitutes…”
Sheik Adel Amir Tureihi, a Shiite cleric in Najaf, said …the practice was designed to provide Muslims with a lawful outlet for natural sexual desires. “People need sex just like they need food,” he said. “Islam is a natural, organic religion.”
But Azhar Tureihi, a Najaf-based gynecologist not directly related to the sheik, said pleasure marriages carried serious societal consequences, regardless of how readily religious authorities accepted the practice.
She said she knew of a woman who became pregnant during a temporary marriage and was the victim of an “honor killing” by her brother. “This kind of killing is called ‘shame washing’ — the brother went to the police and confessed,” the physician said. “The sentence for this type of killing is normally only 10 months.”
Nearby, [a] shopkeeper took a more casual view. He chuckled to himself as he recounted his many temporary brides.
“This is better than committing adultery because it is permitted,” he said, speaking on condition of anonymity.” And sometimes my wife is sick or traveling or outside the house. This kind of marriage can be for one year, one month, one day, one hour — whatever you decide.”
…
…“I ask them here,” he said, waving his hands around his storefront…“The roses, the vases — it’s all a trap. I’ll give them a bouquet or an antique, some small gift like that. If the women ask for too much money, I will refuse.”
…
At least once…, the shopkeeper temporarily married a virgin — a 15-year-old girl, he said…
Considering that Sunnis call the acts above “fornication” and “adultery,” rather than “temporary marriage,” and that Shari’ah’s penalty for adultery is death, one can more easily understand their adamant opposition to Shiite ascendancy.
Another reason for strife is that the compromises required by Free Democracy’s politics do not come easily to people whose faiths are filled with absolutes and harsh punishments. Islam does more than oppose Free Democracy. Islam deprives its followers of the beliefs, philosophies, and habits that could help them embrace it. This, together with the differences between Shiite and Sunni Shari’ah, explains why opposition to the new Iraqi government remains so strong long after the 2005 elections.
Islam opposes Free Democracy philosophically by teaching faithful Muslims to ask questions that Democracy has a hard time answering. For example:
How can one engage in the political process of compromise when dealing with Allah’s Law, as embodied in the perfect words of the Koran?
How can one choose to turn away from the perfect laws that Allah himself commanded?
How can one bear to see Allah’s laws perverted by the misinterpretations of false and ignorant Muslims?
For true believers, the notion of Free Democracy is abhorrent, and not just because it could
impose laws that are contrary to Allah’s will. The very thought of unscholarly people dickering over law is an affront. Such politicians play with laws that only Allah has the right to declare, and which only devout scholars have the wisdom to interpret.
Opposition to Free Democracy is the only thing, other than hatred for Infidels, that could have brought Sunni militants like Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq, together with Shiite militants like Muqtada al-Sadr. These militants, who would have otherwise been at each others’ throats, joined together in October 2005 to oppose Iraq’s constitutional referendum. Their sentiments were like those of a statement issued by the Ansar al-Sunna Army, another extremist group, during their battle against the 2005 elections: “We have also warned everyone against going to…the so-called polling centers of this mockery and dirty blaspheming game, for voting in those centers means electing gods to be worshipped other than Allah.” [14]
This viewpoint, which can seem insane to Westerners, makes perfect sense from an Islamic perspective. Muslims believe that Islamic law was given to them by Allah, and, therefore, the authority to define law belongs to Allah alone. Moreover, because Allah is perfect, Allah’s law must also be perfect, needing no additions or modifications. Therefore Allah’s authority to define law is exclusive and absolute.
Muslims believe that respect for Allah’s law is a form of worship. As it says in The Complete Idiot’s Guide to the Koran:[15]
There are laws and rules for all activities. Any required activity undertaken …as…an obligation to submit to the will of [Allah]… is regarded as worship.
Therefore, the authors of man-made laws have usurped the authority of Allah and set themselves up as gods. Any person who respects those man-made laws is worshipping those lawmakers instead of Allah.
To a devout Muslim, the notion of a secular government is fundamentally unacceptable, and perceived as a threat. For example, Osama bin Laden’s deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, has expressed this view repeatedly, as reported in the Washington Post article, Al-Zawahiri tries to keep al-Qaeda in his grip:[16]
Promoting ideology
,…In a videotape aired by…al-Jazeera…, the…Egyptian surgeon once again blasted the U.S. military and political presence in the Middle East.
But the bulk of his lecture was aimed at another radical Islamic movement: Hamas, which swept to victory in the Jan. 25 elections in the Palestinian territories. Zawahiri congratulated Hamas on its political success, but he also offered a stern warning: Avoid the temptation to work with “secular” Palestinian legislators, and never compromise on efforts to establish strict Islamic law, or sharia.
“Power is not an end in itself. Real power is application of sharia on earth,” he said. “Entering the same parliament as the lay people, recognizing their legitimacy and the accords they have signed is contrary to Islam.”
…
The lecture echoed comments made by Zawahiri on Jan. 6, when he ripped the fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood for taking part in last year’s elections in his native Egypt…democracy, he has said, is an assault on God’s [Allah’s] right to rule.
While these words may sound like the rantings of a madman, they recall the words of former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad quoted earlier in this series:
They [the Jews] invented and successfully promoted Socialism, Communism, Human Rights, and Democracy, so that persecuting them would appear to be wrong, so they may enjoy equal rights with others.
These men despise Free Democracy and consider it evil.
Unfortunately for Muslims, they have no satisfactory alternative to Free Democracy, because they cannot agree on what Allah’s Law actually is. Therefore, after uniting to reject Free Democracy, Muslims proceed to turn upon each other, until one group gains power, through assassination or war, and then maintains it through oppression.
Finally, the most depressing aspect of this attempt to create an Iraqi beachhead for democracy in the Middle East is that the “democracy” Iraq created with its constitution is not the kind of Free Democracy that was envisioned at the start of the war. President Bush has said as much in recent speeches, but in language designed to soften the blow and claim success if any kind of democracy takes hold in Iraq, whether Free or not. For example, at a recent talk he gave to the United States Chamber of Commerce, he said: [17]
As we watch and encourage reforms in the region, we are mindful that modernization is not the same as Westernization. Representative governments in the Middle East will reflect their own cultures. They will not, and should not, look like us.
In other words, we may be witnessing the birth of a nation that resembles the “democracy” of Iran more than the United States. This would leave Americans asking an important question: “Is this what we sacrificed our lives and treasure to create?”
While the new government may be friendly toward the U.S., at least for a while, the resounding answer will be “No, this is not what we set out to do.”
To see what the future may hold for Iraq, consider these reports from Afghanistan, where the U.S. has had comparative success:
An Afghan judge said this week a man named Abdul Rahman had been jailed for converting from Islam to Christianity and could face the death penalty if he refused to become a Muslim again.
Sharia, or Islamic law, stipulates death for apostasy…
“…Whatever the court orders will be executed…” said Mahaiuddin Baluch, an adviser on religious affairs to President Hamid Karzai.[18]
…
Diplomats say the Afghan government is searching for a way to drop the case, and on Wednesday authorities said Rahman is suspected of being mentally ill and would undergo psychological examinations to see whether he is fit to stand trial.
But four senior clerics…said Rahman deserved to be killed for his conversion. “He is not crazy. He went in front of the media and confessed to being a Christian,” said Hamidullah, chief cleric at Haji Yacob Mosque. “The government is scared of the international community. But the people will kill him if he is freed.”
“…The people will not be fooled,” said Abdul Raoulf, cleric at Herati Mosque. “This is humiliating for Islam. Cut off his head.”
Raoulf is considered a moderate cleric in Afghanistan…[19]
…
“For 30 years, we have fought religious wars in this country and there is no way we are going to allow an Afghan to insult us by becoming Christian,” said Mohammed Jan…, who lives…in Kabul…
…
Police arrested [Rahman] last month after discovering him in possession of a Bible…Prosecutors have offered to drop the charges if Rahman converts back to Islam, but he has refused. [20]
…
…prosecutors had issued a letter calling for Rahman’s release because “he was mentally unfit to stand trial.” He also said he did not know where Rahman was staying but that he may be sent overseas for medical treatment.
‘Abdul Rahman must be killed’
Hours earlier, hundreds of clerics, students and others chanting “Death to Christians! ” marched…to protest the court’s decision…
“Abdul Rahman must be killed. Islam demands it,” said senior Cleric Faiez Mohammed,… “The Christian foreigners occupying Afghanistan are attacking our religion.”
…
…Rahman has asked for asylum “outside Afghanistan.”
…
The international outrage over Rahman’s case put Karzai in a difficult position because he also risked offending religious sensibilities…senior Muslim clerics have been united in calling for Rahman to be executed. [21]
The trial for Abdul Rahman’s life did not come from the Taliban, insurgents, militants, or warlords. It came from the Islamic Democracy of Afghanistan, which the United States helped establish. Fortunately, Afghanistan’s government found a loophole in their law and declared Abdul Rahman insane, allowing him to find exile in Italy. Still, this episode leaves disturbing images of what “the will of the people” is in Islamic lands.
The real lesson from Afghanistan, and Iraq, is that it may not be realistic to expect Free Democracy to grow in Islamic nations. Sadly, the U.S. may one day find that the sacrifices it made to bring democracy to the Middle East, measured in hundred of billions of dollars and thousands of lives, only helped Muslims develop new forms of oppression.
Through these and other unpleasant responses to Western aid and interventions, the Muslim world sends three clear messages to the West, and especially to the United States:
Good deeds by Infidels will not be acknowledged or appreciated.
Actions taken by Infidels are likely to be interpreted in the worst possible way, and as an affront to all Muslims, to reinforce and justify Muslim hatred.
Muslims have a special capacity for transforming any worthy concept into oppression by remaking it in the image of Islam.
Why is this? Because one of Islam’s major claims is that it is the final and perfecting step in a long evolution of faith that has moved beyond Judaism and Christianity. For them, gratitude toward the non-Muslim West calls this belief into question, because it is absurd to think that a perfected religion could leave its believers needing help or protection from their inferiors. Christians and Jews are supposed to be the “protected peoples” (Dhimmis), not Muslims! And no one else even deserves “protection,” let alone thanks.
People in the United States have a difficult time understanding the Muslim perspective. This is because they typically see benevolence and care as evidence of friendship. This viewpoint comes from recognizing that we are all flawed, and that we all have our ups and downs. Americans even express this sentiment in popular songs, such as Bill Whithers’ Lean on Me:
Lean on me, when you’re not strong
And I’ll be your friend
I’ll help you carry on
For it won’t be long
‘Til I’m gonna need
Somebody to lean on
Unfortunately, this interpretation of mercy and aid is far from universal. In Roman times, one of the greatest insults a victor could give the loser of a battle was mercy, depriving the loser of honor, both in life and in death. Even the Old Testament gives a malevolent twist to helping others, in Proverbs 24:21-22:
If your enemy is hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he is thirsty, give him water to drink, for you shall heap coals of fire upon his head, and the LORD shall reward you. [22]
In other words, show kindness to your enemy, to humiliate him or her and gain favor with God for yourself. This Old Testament perspective is reflected in Muslim thought and makes their resentment easier to understand.
However, this resentment toward the West does not imply that Muslims will not emigrate to it. Despite their contempt for Infidels, Muslims still want a piece of the West’s prosperity. A jarring example of this comes from Gracia Burnham’s description of conversations that took place while she was held hostage by the Abu Sayyaf in the Philippines:
He (Hurayra) would sit with a little notebook and ask us to help him learn English.
…
…He would ask all about the United States. His real goal, he explained, was to get to Afghanistan and die in holy war so he could go straight to paradise. [23]
…
For some reason, he (Mang Ben) liked the idea of Hurayra learning English. He told the others in his group, “You need to do the same. You won’t go far in this world without it.” [24]
There are two ways to interpret these conversations. It is possible that these members of the Abu Sayyaf wanted to learn English so that they could infiltrate the United States, or some other Western nation, and then carry on their Jihad. It is also possible that they saw English as the language of economic success. Hurayra’s questions about America suggest an interest in finding work in the U.S. Perhaps he wanted both financial prosperity and martyrdom.
This notion of coming to the United States and achieving the American Dream is something that many people around the world embrace, as the flood of immigrants to the U.S. demonstrates.
How can a Muslim brain both despise the United States and want to seek his or her fortune there? After many conversations with friends from India, I have come to understand how this logic works in a foreigner’s mind. Even though these friends are Hindu rather than Muslim, the logic applies to both:
A common opinion among people from India is that India is poor compared to the U.S. simply because India is overpopulated and has relatively few natural resources. My Indian friends had decided to seek their fortunes in the U.S. (and did quite well) because they saw a wide-open country, with plentiful land and resources. While their opinion may appear valid when compared with India, it ignores the fact that Free Democracy and Free Enterprise play vital roles in the United States’ success. It does not recognize that there are other parts of the world with more resources and fewer people but, despite this, they are destitute and chaotic. It also ignores the fact that Japan, like India, also has a large population and few natural resources, but its adoption of Free Democracy and Free Enterprise has brought it remarkable success. It is easier for my friends to turn a blind eye toward the virtues of these institutions rather than criticize elements of their native culture, such as tribalism and the caste system.
In a more benign way, these Indians present a cultural challenge to the United States similar to that of the Muslims. For example, there was a day when one of these friends mentioned to me that she was going to a Patel party (her last name is Patel). I thought “How nice – a family reunion!” She then corrected me: it was much more than a family reunion. She was going there to meet other Patels and possibly find a husband. I was aghast at the implied incest, especially because she was only 16, but she explained to me that the Patels were more of a clan than a set of close blood-relatives. This only made me feel a little better – I could see a tribal or caste system in the process of reincarnating itself over here in the U.S.
Someday, it may be necessary to deal with the issues this conversation brought up. However, the challenge of Indian assimilation into American culture is relatively minor. Indians do not appear intent on making the caste system a global institution enshrined by law. Moreover, the success of Indian democracy is beginning to remove pressure for Indians to move to the U.S. Instead of Indians seeking jobs in America, we are now finding that American jobs are seeking India.
Despite fears of “exporting American jobs,” this phenomenon is actually a wonderful testimony to the success of Free Democracy and Free Enterprise. We should recognize that India is in a state of transition, from being a poor third-world nation to being a prosperous Free Democracy. Just as in the cases of Japan and South Korea in previous decades, India may seem like a threat as it catches up to us, but it will have a very difficult time surpassing us. Let them prosper, and engage with us in mutually beneficial trade.
The Islamic world, however, is far more problematic. Muslims are attracted to the United States because of the opportunities here, but it is not possible for good Muslims to feel comfortable about living in a non-Islamic society which constantly offends their sensibilities and disrespects Shari’ah. These affronts are pervasive: they force women to remove their veils for driver’s license photos; they force Muslim firemen to shave their beards (so that face masks can form effective seals); they prevent men from having multiple wives. The list goes on.
Being told by the Koran not to take Jews and Christians for friends, Muslims face a choice, of either violating the Koran or isolating themselves from the people who surround them. As we found with the family of our renter, “M,” they often choose to isolate themselves. But with their traditions of large families, it is only a matter of time before Muslims will try to reshape their adopted lands in their own image. Unfortunately, in the process of doing so, they will undo the prosperous combination of Free Democracy and Free Enterprise that attracted them to the United States in the first place. France and Canada have already begun to discover that their Muslim populations are trying to chip away at these institutions.
Because of this phenomenon, the United States runs the risk of becoming a modern day Babel. According to the Book of Genesis, Babel was a city that enjoyed great wealth and prosperity. [25] Its prosperity was a towering beacon that attracted people from all over, who sought a share of its wealth. The story says that God caused all of Babel’s residents to suddenly speak different languages. A more obvious secular explanation would be that the people who flooded into Babel, seeking wealth, spoke the languages of their own homelands. In rapid order, as the city filled with people from other lands, communication broke down and Babel’s engine of prosperity collapsed. The people who came to Babel seeking wealth destroyed it instead. Then they left, empty handed.
The United States, like Babel, is beginning to feel the strain of multiple languages. However, the prospect of multiple legal systems is far more dangerous. The Ottoman Empire, with its patchwork of different laws for different peoples, was a testimony to the chaotic results. This is exactly the danger that the U.S. is beginning to face as Shari’ah ascends.
So far, the pressures of Islamic Law upon the United States have been isolated, in the forms of Muslim women protesting unveiled photo-IDs, leniency for honor killings, and a de facto prohibition against printing images of Muhammad, in the wake of Denmark’s cartoon fiasco. In Canada and France, Islamic pressures to create special legal institutions specifically for Muslims are already producing results, and will only increase as Muslims become more numerous. This Babelization of law is especially dangerous in the case of Shari’ah, because Shari’ah is hostile toward many of the West’s citizens, as well as Free Democracy and Free Enterprise.
Is there evidence that many Muslims, who come to the United States seeking prosperity, do not respect the institutions that create that prosperity? What is the basis for accusing Muslims of using their wealth to destroy those institutions?
To answer these questions, consider the Islamic charitable organizations that have been caught funneling donations to terrorist organizations like Hamas and Al Qaeda. One recent example comes from the Boston Globe:
Muslim charity indicted for alleged terrorist link
By Curt Anderson, Associated Press, Boston Globe, July 28, 2004
WASHINGTON — A major American Muslim charity and seven of its officers were charged…with providing millions of dollars in support to Hamas, a Palestinian terrorist group blamed for dozens of suicide bomber attacks in Israel.
The 42-count indictment…claims the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development provided more than $12.4 million to individuals and organizations linked to Hamas from 1995 to 2001…
…The charges include conspiracy, providing material support to a foreign terrorist organization, tax evasion, and money laundering.
Another example was reported recently by USA Today:
Bush administration accuses Saudi charity of financing terrorism
USA Today, September 9, 2004
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Bush administration accused a U.S. arm of a large Saudi charity on Thursday of helping to finance terrorist activities.
The Treasury Department’s action covers Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation’s locations in Ashland, Ore., and Springfield, Mo. The action makes a formal designation that the group is suspected of supporting terrorism…
The department said a federal investigation “shows direct links between the U.S. branch and Osama bin Laden,” the al-Qaeda leader…
In addition, [the] Treasury cited allegations that the U.S. arm of Al-Haramain…engaged in money-laundering offenses…to conceal the movement of funds intended for Chechnya…which they claimed was for the purchase of a prayer house…
…[Also,] donations made to Al-Haramain intended to support Chechen refugees were instead diverted to support “mujahideen as well as Chechen leaders affiliated with the al-Qaeda network.”
While indictments are not convictions, it is disconcerting that these charitable organizations, which are some of the largest and most legitimate of their kind, have multiple-count indictments against them. Moreover, these are just two of many such organizations that have been accused. While the U.S. court system can take years to determine guilt or innocence, these cases, together with the terrorist cells discovered on American soil, call into question the intentions of a significant number of American Muslims.
While the United States has a small Islamic minority at the moment, this situation could change rapidly. As of February 2005, there were 1209 Mosques in the U.S. and roughly 2-3 million Muslims, who comprise less than 1% of the population. [26] However, in Western Europe, Muslim populations rose, through a combination of immigration, marriage, and high birthrates, to nearly 10% in a few decades. If our experience is anything like theirs, then we can soon expect attempts by Muslims to reshape U.S. law. As in Canada and France, Muslims will work to establish legally recognized Shari’ah courts, government-funded religious institutions, and special accommodations at schools.
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 4:
[1] Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt, Syria, Senegal, Niger, Morocco, Bangladesh, Pakistan, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Oman, Bahrain, and Turkey.
[2] Fewer Arabs admire the U.S., Survey Finds, by Toshiyuki Inaba, Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service, July 23, 2004.
[3] According to the biography of James Zogby found on the Arab American Institute’s website (http://www.aaiusa.org/dr-zogby/36/biography), “In 1975, Dr. Zogby received his doctorate from Temple University’s Department of Religion, where he studied under the Islamic scholar Dr. Ismail al-Faruqi.”
[4] According to The New Yorker article The Pollster, by Larissa MacFarquhar, which appeared in the October 18, 2004 issue:
Zogby’s questions are mostly straightforward, but sometimes they are more leading than necessary. For instance, one question from a recent survey of American Muslims asks, “If you had to choose one of the following ways to wage the war against terrorism, which would you choose?” and offers these options: “Changing America’s Middle East policy,” “Use of strategic nuclear weapons,” “Attacking Iran,” “Contracting with mercenaries,” “Using U.S. Military Covert/Special Forces,” “U.S. Air Force bombing,” and “Biological warfare.” If there exists choices beyond Arafat or war, they are not offered…
Some Zogby surveys can sound almost like push polls—fake polls designed not to collect data but to persuade respondents of a point of view (the prototypical push poll being one in which an interviewer calls voters and asks them whether they would be less likely to vote for Candidate A if they knew that he was a bigamist or had killed his mother with an axe).
[5] The Middle East for Dummies, by Craig S. Davis, PhD, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2003, Chapter 12, section entitled The Iran-Iraq War, page 171.
[6] Saddam Hussein’s Rise to Power by Jessica Moore, The Online NewsHour (website for The News Hour with Jim Lehrer), Public Broadcasting System.
[7] Kurds say Iraq’s attacks serve as a warning by Scott Peterson, The Christian Science Monitor, May 13, 2002.
[8] Expert: 300,000 in Iraq’s Mass Graves, Associated Press, FOXNews, November 8, 2003.
[9] No Threat: A former weapons inspector rejects Bush’s evidence by Jon Wiener, LA Weekly, September 20, 2002.
[10] From the website www.islamicweb.com/history/mahdi.htm, we receive this definition:
The term “MAHDI” is a title meaning “The Guided one”. Mahdi is a normal man who is going to follow the true Islam. His name will be Muhammad and his father name will be ‘Abdullah. He is a descendant from Ali and Fatima (daughter of the prophet Muhammad…) so he will be descendant from al-Hasan or al-Husain. Mahdi will be very just and his capital will be Damascus. Allah told us that Jews will master the world two times (we live now 1998 during the first one) and Mahdi will appear between those two periods and will rule through the last one. Mahdi is NOT a prophet but he is the final Rightly Guided Khalifa [see definition of Caliph]. Mahdi will lead Muslims to a great victory against the Christian Romans (i.e. All the white Europeans including the Americans). This great war is called al-Malhamah al-Kubrah or Armageddon. It will end up with a great victory to Muslims against Romans after six years. Muslims will take over their capital Rome (this can be any city). In the seventh year, the Antichrist will appear and a greater war will start between Jews and Muslims for 40 days…and will end when Jesus…will come and Muslims will kill all Jews. All people will convert into Islam. Peace will pervade the whole world.
According to Twelver Shiism, the 12th Imam, also referred to as the “Hidden Imam,” is the Mahdi.
[11] U.S. Marines take command of troops in Najaf, CNN News, August 10, 2004.
[12] Resurrecting Empire, by Rashid Khalidi, Beacon Press, Boston, 2004, Chapter 1, entitled Raising the Ghosts of Empire, page 172.
[13] Iranian minister makes historic Iraq trip, by Bassem Mroue, Associated Press, The Boston Globe, May 17, 2005.
[14] Troops Mobilize for Iraqi Balloting, by Karl Vick, Washington Post, January 28, 2005.
[15] The Complete Idiot’s Guide to the Koran, by Shaykh Muhammad Sarwar and Brandon Toropov, Alpha Books, a division of Penguin Group (USA) Inc., Chapter 4, section entitled Is Islam a Religion or a Social System? , page 39.
[16] Al-Zawahiri tries to keep al-Qaeda in his grip, by Craig Whitlock, The Washington Post, April 15, 2006.
[17] President Bush Discusses Freedom in Iraq and Middle East: Remarks by the President at the 20th Anniversary of the National Endowment for Democracy, United States Chamber of Commerce, Washington D.C., November 3, 2003 (White House press release).
[18] Afghanistan says fate of convert up to the court, Reuters, MSNBC News, March 22, 2006.
[19] Some clerics call for killing Afghan Christian, Associated Press, MSNBC News, March 24, 2006.
[20] Afghan convert may be unfit for trial, Associated Press, USA Today, March 22, 2006.
[21] Afghan who became Christian freed from prison: Italian foreign minister will ask government to grant asylum to convert, Associated Press, MSNBC News, March 28, 2006.
[22] King James Version.
[23] In the Presence of My Enemies, by Gracia Burnham, Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 2003, page 118.
[24] In the Presence of My Enemies, by Gracia Burnham, Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 2003, page 121.
[25] See Bible, Genesis 11:1-8.
[26] Muslims in America, National Geographic magazine, February 2005.
Recent Comments