|
Guest column--A very real clash of civilizations
By Perry J. Mitchell
Special to the Coastal Point
The republication of 12 Danish cartoons in the Middle East precipitated much anger and violence in Islamic countries. Actually, one of the cartoons — which depicted the Prophet Muhammad with a bomb shaped turban — was originally published months ago. Devout Muslims consider this image blasphemous. Westerners who believe in free speech and press view this unrest as misplaced. On the other hand, devout Muslims see this as an attack on their religion and some believe an attack on themselves.
Understanding the Islamic world is not easy for Westerners. Our political and religious heritage and values are quite different from theirs. We believe in freedom of the press and satirize religion while their values are antithetical. We believe in separation of church and state and they follow theocratic values.
This violence called to mind Samuel Huntington’s 1993 book, “Clash of Civilization.” He was a Harvard political scientist who described how the world was divided by religion. His book has been criticized by many political scientists, but, at the same time, many admit that it does contain some truths.
In the book, written after the end of the Cold War, he argued that religion may predict future international alignments better than commerce or other factors such as oil. This recent turmoil caused by the Danish cartoons seemingly reflected not only a difference in religious values but a growing unease with the West.
Where does one draw the line between fundamentalist ideology and moderate Islam? Terrorism recruits its soldiers and plans its strategy in the name of Islam. I want to make clear that moderate Islam is not the problem. Unfortunately, this distinction was not made by some — including those who published the cartoons.
Islamic fundamentalism has become a motivating force for zealots and radicals who want to take up jihad. Groups such as Al Qaeda use the U.S. presence in the Middle East — and particularly in Iraq — as examples of how we have taken Islamic land to oppress Muslim people.
Islam, some will say, divides the world into two camps: dar es-salaam, house of peace, the Islamic world; and dar al-harb, house of war, the non-Islamic world. Islamic fundamentalists use the us-versus-them to divide us.
Unfortunately, fundamentalist Islamic leaders, such as those in Iran, seek to mix nationalism and Islam. Iran, a non-Arab country, is bent on making a nuclear weapon. It recently spurned the International Atomic Energy Agency, which has voted to refer the matter to the United Nations Security Council. While claiming that it wants to generate nuclear power, its uncooperative behavior seems to belie its use of nuclear fuel for peaceful purposes. A nuclear Iran would be the worst-case scenario.
There is also a power struggle between the moderates and fundamentalists for the control of governments. The fundamentalists wish to impose sharia, or Muslim law. We have seen this in Afghanistan, Iran, Sudan and other countries. The Hamas party in Palestine may force this issue. Fundamentalist in Egypt, Saudia Arabia and Algeria are ready to take over the government if they are given the chance and they will impose Islamic law like the Taliban in Afghanistan.
The Danish cartoons certainly exposed the latent anger boiling beneath the surface. True, it was stoked by those who would use it for their own purposes. However, it fused the moderates and the fundamentalists temporarily on an issue where they both agree.
American diplomacy needs to reach out to the moderate Muslims and support them. How we do this is the $64 question.
Perry J. Mitchell is a retired political science professor living in Ocean View. He can contacted via e-mail at pmtichell@mchsi.com.
|
