This is no "Clash of Civilisations"
It is possible when looking at certain right wing blogger's work to identify a wish to encourage what Samuel Huntington referred to as "The Clash of Civilizations".
With the recent controversy raging over Pope Benedict quoting the 14th-century Byzantine emperor Manuel II, and his statement, "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached", sites such as Michelle Malkin's have sought to fan the flames with quotations of their own:If Islam is ever to peacefully co-exist with other faiths in the manner that Christendom finally learned how to do, then it has to start abiding questions and criticisms without resorting to violence. Islam has to learn to persuade and to attract people through reason, not through forced conversions and coexistence through violent supremacy. Muslim leaders around the world still believe that our faith can only exist at their sufferance, and any question of their doctrinal beliefs has to be met with violence or demands for apologies, not with rhetoric, facts, and reason.
Indeed, the whole of Malkin's view of the War on Terror seems to identify Islam as the enemy by casting their reaction to the Pope's remarks as yet another example of the inflexibility of Islam.
Indeed, this casting of the "War on Terror" as a clash of civilisations was recently taken up by Tony Blair who changed the formula only slightly by casting the conflict as a fight against "radical" Islam.
Why are we identifying a battle against terrorists with the followers of a religion, even if we say we are only against the "radical" followers of that religion?
The IRA conducted a 37 year campaign on British soil which took the lives of many of our citizens, but I have no memory of us ever talking about "Catholic" terrorists. Indeed, their religion was of no consequence to us as we concerned ourselves primarily with the criminality of their actions.
Without discussing whether or not the Pope was wise to quote Manuel II on the day after the fifth anniversary of 9-11, the reaction of Muslims world wide to his speech is some indication of the tinderbox that has been created by viewing this conflict in religious terms.
The popularity of bin Laden amongst some Muslims world wide has been more of a cultural phenomenon than a religious one. When the Arab world describes it's relation's with the West the word that is most frequently used is "humiliation". Bin Laden gained popularity by showing that the Arab world could hit back. It was for this reason that many young Muslims embraced him, rather than a belief in his wish to establish an Islamic theocracy.
We ignore that vital distinction at our peril.
Indeed, the more we see the War on Terror as a clash of civilisations or as a battle between Islam and the west, the more we do bin Laden's work for him.
Bin Laden's extreme religious beliefs are not popular, but his identification with certain injustices being perpetrated upon Arabs by the west and Israel - most especially the plight of the Palestinians - are extremely popular as they touch upon raw nerves in the Arab world that unite shared grievances.
Bin Laden conflates the two, making one synonymous with the other. We should be seeking to make a distinction between the grievances bin Laden highlights and the extreme religious beliefs that he stands for.
By casting the War on Terror as a fight against Islam, we are rather missing the point. Had we identified the battle with the IRA as a war against Catholicism - or even as a war against "radical" Catholicism - we would have lost, as all religions will pull together when perceived to be under attack. That is their shared history that goes all the way back to the Crusades.
The battle that should be being fought is with al Qaeda, not with the religion it purports to represent.
The reaction to the Pope's speech should remind us all of just how dangerous it is to see our present troubles in religious terms.
6 comments:
only you as far as I know have equated the war on terroism with a war on islam. This does however become a obvious link to many sects of islam, when their leaders call out for gihad. When will their remaining leaders distance themseleves publicly from their more irrational brethen. Is it a matter of fear or non-spoken agreement
Maybe you didn't read the article very well. I pointed out that Tony Blair has also called it a war against "radical" Islam.
Indeed, I link to an article entitled, "Blair: Western values must triumph over radical Islam".
And by arguing that it is for Islam's "remaining leaders to distance themselves publicly from their more irrational brethren" you are perfectly proving my point.
When did we ask the Catholic Church to denounce the IRA?
Hint: We didn't. Because we never saw the two as related.
You say I'm the first person you have ever heard make this connection and then make all the cliched, wrong arguments of one who accepts this "logic".
The truth, as your argument confirms, is that people like you do see this as a war with Islam.
I've argued in the article why I think you are wrong, maybe now, rather than expressing astonishment at hearing my argument, you'd like to put forward why you think you are right.
It is utterly amazing that anybody is still attempting to make the "IRA as Christian equivalent of jihadists" argument. This stupid argument has been debunked repeatedly in the past. For somebody who appears to pay attention to right-wing sources like Malkin, I'd think you'd be acutely aware of that.
Karen Armstrong made the same argument a while back. Jihad Watch demonstrated what a stupid comparison it is:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/007082.php
I've read your Jihad Watch article and the premise it is based on is fundamentally flawed. Al Qaeda do not claim that they are engaging in these acts because it is part of "their core religious beliefs". Indeed, bin Laden has said the reason America was attacked was because of Israeli actions in Palestine and the American presence in Saudi Arabia.
But I notice people like you continue to argue falsely about what this conflict is actually about.
You need it to be about Islam because that reduces any culpability you may have for the conflict. The US continues, as we recently saw in Lebanon, to back Israeli acts of aggression against an unarmed civilian population. But right wingers like yourself prefer to pretend that this is all happening because certain people and religions are "evil" and "incompatible with the west".
The truth is that this happening because of policies that people like yourself back. And it won't stop until the Israelis are forced to obey UN resolutions to the same extent that we demand of others.
People like you are merely banging the bottom of the pond in the hope of making the water muddy. Perhaps in the states people buy that bullshit, but in Europe many of us are coming to see the bigger picture. Indeed, even Sharon's plans to withdraw from the territories was an indication that even he realised towards the end that the game is up.
Once Americans realise that their citizens are being killed because Israel is attempting to control land that does not belong to it, they will not continue to support this.
Terrorism happens for a reason, it's proponents have a goal.
You are trying to obfuscate what that goal actually is.
Kel, you are an absolute moron.
Of course al-Qaeda acts out of their core religious beliefs. Their entire behavior is governed by their religion. In the past they have stated openly their intention of bringing about a worldwide Caliphate. Furthermore, your claim that al-Qaeda's sole concern is driving U.S. troops out of the Middle East and attacking Israel isn't true. Al-Qaeda just announced it is teaming up with another terrorist organization to attack France. Al-Qaeda in Iraq has been attacking Shia nonstop for the past few years. Neither of those have anything to do with the United States or Israel.
Wake up and get a clue, asshat. You really are dumb if you can't see the obvious differences between the IRA and al-Qaeda.
Ah, having failed to win the argument by logic you now resort to outright insult.
You do have an extraordinary debating style. You initially claimed that I was the first person you had even heard say this war was being portrayed as a war against Islam and by your second comment you were saying that this same argument - which you claimed only I had ever made - was in fact so commonplace that it had long been demolished.
You are hardly consistent. Now, you choose simply to insult.
The fact is that I have given you the reasons why bin Laden says Al Qaeda is attacking the US. Perhaps you think he made himself the most wanted man in the world and then lied about his reasons? I have no idea what you actually believe as it changes every time you make a comment here.
You simply lack all credibility.
Post a Comment