December 6, 2002
THE RHETORICAL PRESIDENCY:
A violent religion? (Charles Krauthammer, December 6, 2002, townhall.com)Is Islam an inherently violent religion? A debate on this subject has received much attention in the United States. The question is absurd. It is like asking whether Christianity is a religion of peace. Well, there is Francis of Assisi. And there is the Thirty Years' War. Which do you choose?[T]he vast majority of Muslims are obviously peaceful people living within the rules of civilized behavior. But the actual violence, bloodletting against nearly every non-Muslim civilization from Hindu to African animist, demands attention.
Underlying most of the individual grievances is a sense that Islam has lost its rightful place of dominance, the place it enjoyed half a millennium ago. Al Qaeda deputy Ayman Zawahiri's allusions to the loss of Andalusia (medieval Spain) reinforce the bin Laden promise of revenge and redemption.
This feeling of a civilization in decline--and adopting terror and intimidation as the road to restoration--is echoed in a recent U.N. report that spoke frankly of the abject Arab failure to modernize. It is one thing for the Arabs to have fallen behind the West. But to fall behind South Korea--also colonized, once poor and lacking any of the Islamic world's fantastic oil wealth--is sheer humiliation.
Many on the Right are decrying President Bush's continuing insistence that Islam is a religion of peace. One wonders if they aren't missing the point. If, as we've discussed previously, the Reformation of Islam is going to be heavily influenced, maybe even driven, by the ideas, rhetoric, and military might of the United States, then what Mr. Bush can be said to be doing is redefining Islam.
Posted by Orrin Judd at December 6, 2002 8:10 AM
On what grounds do you expect Islam to change? What would motivate Islamists to change? They are very happy with their religion as it is, obviously.
We have nothing to offer them that they want.
except peace, freedom, democracy, dignity and prosperity.
Posted by: oj at December 6, 2002 2:09 PMThey don't want those.
Consider it this way. We differ on how the
modern synthesis occurred, but it did occur.
What distinguishes the modern west are a
suite of opinions -- like religious tolerance,
moral antislavery, equality under law -- and
techniques -- like science, experiment -- and
habits -- like productive labor, extension of
social goods without reference to tribe or
birth.
You and I disagree about how these were
invented, but however that came about, it
was a very expensive process.
Maybe in another 500 years, Islam on its own
would develop some version of the same
suite. But we don't have to wait to see.
If Islam wanted any of that stuff, it could
have it free, gratis and for nothing. There is
no evidence I know of that any significant
fraction of Islamic people have moved in that
direction.
The idea that peace, freedom etc. are universal
goods is a narrow cultural concept. Most
people do not value them much, if at all.
Harry:
One unfondly recalls the Cold War, when folks like you blithely assured us that there was something in the Eastern European/Asiatic mindset that made them want totalitarian government rather than freedom. The continued existence of communist government was said to prove your point. It's as inane an argument now as it was then, as witness the Afghans, Iranians, Palestinians, etc., who are choosing freedom when opportunity presents itself.
Sure, the Ukrainians are thriving on democracy.
The Libyans had a revolution to throw out
their king and the first thing they did was
to invent another king, only they didn't give
him that title.
You're the one, not me, who keeps pointing
out how the western Europeans keep voting
to restrict their own liberty.
Iran is a good test, though. I am skeptical
that the mullahs are on the way out. If I'm
wrong about that, I'll still be skeptical about
what kind of replacement government Iran
gets.
We'll see how wrong I am soon enough.