Transforming Our Self-Image
The West’s Need to Find New Perspective in Relationship to the Global Islamic Community
by
D. Whitesmith
***
by
D. Whitesmith
***
There is a battle raging in the modern world. This battle is one between conflicting worldviews encompassing political opinion, culture, and religion. It is a battle between the Western paradigm and the Muslim paradigm—a battle comprised of misconceptions on both sides which have resulted in poor dialogue, misunderstanding, and a galvanized fanatical community both of Muslims and Westerners. In this assessment my goal is not to comprehensively and exhaustively solve the conflict. That would be both naïve and impossible within the scope of this writing. I hope to detail a direction that must be adopted if either side is truly interested in resolving the tensions and violence that are dominating the world scene today. As a Westerner I cannot speak for the Eastern peoples that have been impacted by decisions of Western countries and what their response should be, but I will attempt to speak from a Western perspective to people of the West who are obligated as responsible individuals to take ownership of the impact of the decisions of their government, elected officials, and direction of Western movement. As an honest and active member in this conflict we have the responsibility of crossing cultural and ideological barriers for the purpose of reconciliation. We are responsible for our reactions to events in life and must take the first step if we expect any reciprocity from Muslim communities which have lost honor and feel that their identity is being threatened by unjust decisions and foreign influence.
Respect is a major element that is lacking in the relationship between East and West (Jabbour 1993: 9). The wrong question is to ask who is at fault. The right question is to ask how did this happen and what does our response need to be—not for the purpose of seeing justice accomplished (because justice is not something that will be able to be achieved on all sides), but to see reconciliation and mutual trust become a reality (Chapman 2002: 237). In this assessment, we will take a cursory glance at the situation as it exists and as it is contributing to the further development and spread of fundamental Islam. We will touch on the honest realities of the impact of Western decisions to Muslim communities, attempt to recognize and understand the Arab response to these decisions that have impacted their communities and we will suggest specific changes in the Western approach which is necessary to curb the propagation of fundamentalism in communities directly and indirectly involved in this conflict. Islam is not the enemy. The West is not the enemy. Christianity is not the enemy. The enemy is intolerance and the extreme positions that divide and polarize communities which are struggling to exist. We are not called to impose our policy decisions on others solely for our own benefit. This is the approach that has led to our loss of credibility and reputation serving to build an image as manipulative modern colonialists imposing our Western ideals in an Arab world. We are called to restore honor to the Muslim people who have been humiliated by the insertion of Western policies without regard to the impact of those policies. The discontent our decisions have created has served to turn many Muslims against us and toward an idealistic, nationalistic, accepting community—that is radical fundamental Islam. Our goal should be to re-forge our image by restoring honor and independence to the communities that feel marginalized and forced to react against our imposing figure.
A Cursory Glance
At the heart of the problem is the relationship between Israel and the Arab world. This problem is not new and has been brewing since British forces controlled Egypt in the late 1800s (Jabbour 1993: 78). The roots of the division of the East and West can be traced back to the crusades (and even earlier if one wants to look through history), but the recurring theme throughout modern history is one of Western colonialism exerting its influence and control politically and militarily over Arab nations. Knowledge of this history is critical to understand the elements present in current Arab culture and the collective distrust of the West’s motives. This conflict has been exacerbated by the establishment of the Israeli state regardless of the impact to the existing populace of Palestinians (Chapman 2002: 95) and then the illegitimate seizure of excess land by Israel during the years following 1967 (Carter 2006: 58-59). In spite of UN Article 242 (Carter 2006: 3, 217) calling for an Israeli withdraw from occupied territories and the tone of the Balfour Declaration (Chapman 2002: 65) from 1917 calling for respect of the rights of non-Jewish Palestinians, Israel has continued to fail to comply with global demands and the USA has continued to support Israel’s efforts. With these facts it is difficult to do anything but recognize our bias, the bias of Israel, and the validity of some grievances put forth by Palestine. An additional element that complicates this situation is religion. Christian Zionists and Jewish Zionists are pushing this conflict forward, increasing the contempt Muslims have for the USA, which is seen as a Christian nation (Chapman 2002: 242, 262). Additionally, this perception of religious manipulation and purpose fuels the movement of moderates to accept and actively encourage the desires of fundamental militant Islamic groups (Jabbour 1993: 227).
There are many communities that are involved in this situation and their interests must be considered if we expect to enter into productive relationships with them and hope to see fundamentalism marginalized through their decisions. For this specific conflict we obviously understand that the Israelis and the Palestinians are directly involved. We also understand that the neighbors of Israel are involved, as was visible in the 1967 and 1973 wars. These would include the countries of Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia (Carter 2006: 71). These nations have a vested interest in seeing a resolution in Israel because the result of discontent spreading to their countries as a result of this conflict threatens the security of their own people (Carter 2006: 86, 88). There is also a third set of significant participants that we may not readily see in the West. Those would be Muslims across the world who identify with Islam. Muslims in North Africa, Central Asia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Indonesia, and Western Europe as well as in the USA may not be directly involved in this conflict, but they are united with the Arab Muslim world. They are part of the Umma, as some elements of Islam would say (Jabbour 1993: 206-207), and this means that the dishonor and humiliation experienced by the Palestinians and Arabs through the decisions of the West dishonors them as well and encourages a response from them (Qutb 21). This fact underscores how deeply-seated religion is in this situation on both sides. When the West does not move toward a fair and appropriate resolution, but reinforces a biased position, this encourages more moderate Muslims to align themselves with an active contingent that is set on restoring the honor lost by the presence of an unjust Western entity. The cooperation of and unified decisions of the states involved in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is essential in cultivating an atmosphere among Middle-Eastern Muslims that encourages a moderate and appropriate response to the West and their influence.
The theologizing of this conflict is what leads to extreme elements on both sides having a significant sway on the communities of people involved. Christian Zionists and Zionists feel validated in their pursuit to consolidate and establish the boundaries laid out in the Old Testament (Chapman 2002: 262). The result is an end justifies the means mentality that oppresses the Palestinians. The reaction of the Palestinians and Arabs that feel unfairly persecuted is one that upholds radical militant methods of protecting and establishing a true, just model of civilization that is at war with corrupt, illegitimate governments--jahiliyah (Qutb 129-130).
If a relationship of trust is to be established we must start with a reformation of our own assumptions. We must be willing to evaluate and recognize our biases as we relate to this conflict. We must challenge what we believe to be accepted norms and legitimate responses. Even if we cannot fully correct our biases we can at least come to the table admitting that we have biases and work to minimize the damaging impact of their influence (Chapman 2002: 186-188). Our decisions should not be based solely on the benefits they bring to our side. We need to understand the impact we may have on the communities that our decisions affect.
The Impact of Western Decisions
Choices made through US foreign policy are interpreted in many ways outside our borders (Kuhn 2009: 159). Our credibility is damaged by our consistent independent approach to conflict-resolution and our drive to consolidate our power and influence. That approach of cultural or ethnic superiority, which is what overshadows our decisions and is apparent in our attitude, is an element that has helped shape relations between Christianity and Islam for centuries (Kuhn 2009: 30). That means that our actions are filtered by Muslims as they search for our ulterior motives. Our “just” actions are seen as a secondary motivator and, typically in the Middle-East, our justice is tainted by our greed. Do we give lip service to injustice being wrong, but then take no steps to resolve unjust problems that we have helped create (Carter 2006: 193)? Are we truly moving in to topple this or that government for the freedom of their people and the benefit of the nation or is our primary motivator oil, a sympathetic new government, and an extension of our presence for the purpose of accessing valuable resources?
If we can set aside the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for a moment and look at trends in other states we can see this distrust. The Iraq war is an easy example. A case can be made to justify certain actions taken by the USA as it decided to move into Iraq during the Gulf War as well as when Saddam Hussein was removed, but what was at the core of our motivation for changing the structure there? Our military assault didn’t simply remove a dictator, but it ended up weakening the trust of some of our allies as we constantly manipulated the situation to our advantage. The response by Iran was to aid the resistance and solidify their power base. The US is criticized by many Arab nations for their invasion and it is easy to find someone who is willing to speak out against our continued presence asking if we have come to occupy or if we are interested in leaving. The inconsistency between our words and actions are what has worked to discredited us. Arabs see our speech, but do not see any real action in Israel to stop injustice—what they do see in our actions is an almost unconditional support of Israel (Kuhn 2009: 170).
If we look across many of the current wars in which the US is involved we can find similar issues. In Pakistan and Afghanistan we can see how moderate Muslim communities are torn between fundamental groups and Western forces attempting to convince them of the noble intentions of their presence. The West has a track record of supporting groups (like the Taliban) for the purpose of gaining a victory, but after that one victory is achieved they leave because they got what they needed. This is an example of how the US makes decisions solely for their own benefit. In these situations fundamentalism, for the struggling Muslim, may not be a perfect answer, but neither is loyalty to an untrustworthy foreign nation. It is understandable why many moderates are struggling to determine with whom to align themselves. It would be equally difficult for rational Americans to choose between supporting a militant White Supremacy group wanting to establish a pure community through force and a “trustworthy” Soviet army on US soil. Both sides have significant faults and bridging the differences would be a monumental task.
A major problem in this is a view that as Islam is to Arab states (meaning a comprehensive and appropriate system to manage all spheres of life in submission to Allah), such is Christianity to the West. Muslims say that the Christian system is obviously corrupt and not from Allah. When the Muslim world evaluates the morals and ethics of the USA they understand what they see as a representative illustration of Christianity. Those living in the West know that this is far from true, but the impression made by our culture reinforces the message of fundamentalists. Seyyid Qutb attacked the West saying:
“Look at this capitalism with its monopolies, its usury and whatever else is unjust in it; at this individual freedom, devoid of human sympathy and responsibility for relatives except under the force of law; at this materialistic attitude which deadens the spirit; at this behavior, like animals, which you call ‘Free mixing of the sexes; at this vulgarity which you call ‘emancipation of women,’ at these unfair and cumbersome laws of marriage and divorce, which are contrary to the demands of practical life; and at Islam, with its logic, beauty, humanity and happiness, which reaches the horizons to which man strives but does not reach. It is a practical way of life and its solutions are based on the foundation of the wholesome nature of man.” [sic] (Qutb 139)
The flaws of the West are understood to be threatening the Muslim world as we act in ways that undermine our credibility in Muslim communities. Qutb was a moderate Muslim that was encouraged toward fundamentalism by his experience and the behavior of people he met with in the West. He was able to see first-hand the attitude of the West toward Israel and Egypt (in particular the reaction of Americans to the assassination of Hasan Al-Banna). These factors led to his discontent with Western culture and his reaction to the things he saw (Jabbour 1993: 125). In many ways Qutb’s assertions have basis in truth (Parshall 2006: 105). In other ways he is overstating and misunderstanding elements of our culture. The question for us is: Are we actively reinforcing the misconceptions of Muslims by our actions or are we working to minimize them? Qutb comes to the table with bias, as do we, but the challenge is not reconciling communities that are unbiased. The challenge is reconciling communities that are severely biased. The main question is: Are we, as Westerners, willing to be the ones who step forward with honesty ready to admit our faults and become vulnerable for the purpose of true reconciliation? We are recognizing this need; therefore, it is incumbent upon us to be the initiators of this new dialogue. The first step is to validate and respect the concerns that Muslims have about our behavior and motives. This will allow the governments in these countries to address the needs of their people, enter into new dialogue, work toward lowering discontent, and encouraging the people to raise their grievances without violence because their grievances are being heard and are valid. The West does not need to force submission of its allies. It should respect their freedom to disagree.
Changes That Must Happen in Western Approaches
If we expect to see any normalization in relations between the Muslim and Christian nations we have several things that must change. The West has become ingrown in some areas. The general population has an unbalanced understanding of Islam and fundamentalism. The true scope of what it means to be Muslim is lost to images that reinforce false stereotypes and over-exaggerate the militant Muslim fundamentalists. In order for the West to move forward in our approach we need to admit that not all Muslims are terrorists. In fact, we need to accept the fact that very few Muslims are militant, a minority are fundamental or have fundamental tendencies, and the majority are culturally Muslim and have not made a clear decision as to which direction they are moving—whether toward fundamentalism or toward a moderate stance (Chapman 2002: 252). Westerners need to engage in material that challenges the accepted image of Islam in order to accurately understand and come to an appreciation for the Islamic community. We have many opportunities to find these sources of information. Just a little effort could change a person’s understanding. As a starting point we can look at successful and moderate secular Muslim states, like Turkey, as well as take time to hear what modern, moderate Muslims say about Islam (this could be people like Mahmoud Mohammed Taha, Abdullahi Ahmed An-Naim, or even Stephen Schwartz). If we would be open-minded enough to hear what the Muslim world has to say and suspend judgment until we have been given more information our approach and understanding of Muslims would begin to change. We could come to understand them as people instead of as a category, as struggling individuals like us instead of terrorists determined to destroy what we stand for (Jabbour 1993: 7). Islam is much larger and more complex than we are taught by Western media.
In addition to learning to acknowledge our ignorance of Islam and Muslim states, we need to admit, maybe for the first time, that many unacceptable things have been done in the name of Christianity (Kuhn 2009 31). We also have to realize that many actions of the West are interpreted by Muslims as actions that represent Western Christianity and are seen through the interpretation of their cultural lens (Parshall 2006: 108-110). These elements go back centuries and have developed the current relationship between the Christian and Muslim worlds (Parshall 2006: 106-107). The Crusades, fought under the banner of Western Christianity, is a starting point for us to understand how the Church has been not only preaching the gospel, but has been manipulating religion to accomplish political goals (Kuhn 2009: 25). Muslims interpret the actions of the West as they understand Islam in their society—as a structure that encompasses Religion, Culture, and Politics. They see Christianity as Western and therefore all things Western are reflections of Christianity. We may feel that this is not accurate, but it is how they understand us regardless. When Christianity is represented as a conquering religion it is easy to understand the reaction of Muslims toward our presence. We need to enter into the experience of Muslims and understand how they view our influence. We need to appreciate the fact that our political and social impact is sometimes not acceptable to Muslims. If we look at Qutb, it is obvious that Western ideals and Christianity has negatively impacted Muslim society (Qutb 111). If we’re honest we can see how our political decisions have manipulated governments under the cloak of religion, as in Egypt with England or the USA and Israel. Our foreign policy and lack of an exertion of influence to hold Israel accountable for their settlements in the West Bank and Gaza reinforce the perception that the West is unjust. The West’s failure to act as a fair moderator between the Israelis and Palestinians, allowing the Palestinian land to be brutally divided (Carter 2006: 194), tacitly encouraging Israel to corral the Palestinians on their own land and settle there (Carter 2006: 120), and accepting the deaths of innocent Palestinians in the name of the defense of Israel have damaged the credibility and confidence the Arab nations may have had in the USA (Carter 2006: 16). Our hypocrisy in failing to enforce reasonable UN resolutions, which Israel is not honoring, dishonors the oppressed Palestinians and, in turn, dishonors the reputation of Muslim communities as a whole (Carter 2006: 208-209). We may give lip service to the opposition of some of Israel’s actions, but we take no action to curb it (Carter 2006: 193).
The main response we need to have is a reshaping of our position based on new information that we have access to. This is not information that is hidden, but it is information that we need to actively seek out and synthesize in an unbiased way with the goal of reforming our prejudices toward Muslims and breaking down our inaccurate and unfair stereotypes about Muslims. We have to enter into their experience in order to see our actions through their eyes. They have a worldview and historical experience that has shaped their culture and perspective, as do we. We are not obligated to accept everything they believe, but we need to be able to step outside of our structured world in order to understand that their world looks and operates differently. This is a way to renew and reestablish our relationship with Muslim states. Mutual respect and trust will go a long way to reshape our approach.
Conclusion
If we begin to take this challenging direction in the West then we will see changes. These changes will show themselves on many levels in our culture and in our approach to international relations. We have a responsibility to act as transformational elements on a human level. Not only does our government need to change, but we need to change individually and accept our role in bridging the gap between the West and East. We need to hear a call to divorce ourselves from Christian Zionism which is working to the detriment of our relationship with Muslims. We need to reevaluate the impact our decisions make in politics. Do the people we vote for uphold our principles or are we unwittingly contradicting our core values in the approach our politicians take on the world stage? There is an inconsistency between what we say we believe as a people and how our actions impact communities overseas. If we stand for justice and freedom we should not oppress and manipulate countries into submission.
We do not have all of the answers, but the Muslims are not our enemies. Their basic moral fabric is in agreement with the Judeo-Christian values that we accept in our culture. Even some fundamentalists espouse ideals that we agree with (maybe more frequently than we want to admit) (Qutb 97-98). We can learn a lot from what Muslims say and believe. We should not be in conflict and competition, but in unity and agreement on many things. We must stop categorizing and generalizing Islam. Crossing into a relationship with a Muslim will reveal the fact that Muslims are people struggling to cope with the same realities we face in the USA. If we are willing to listen to the stories of Muslims we will realize that many of their reactions are justified and born out of true tragedy (Chapman 2002: 75-77). If we were in their place we may have made similar decisions. Muslims are not people who are different in their essence, but they are people with different experiences. We are obligated, as a country and people who recognize that there is a problem, to step out of our ethnocentric arrogance and move to a position of vulnerability in order to bring the two sides together.
We may not have all of the answers, but it is obvious that warring against something or someone we don’t understand is a poor solution to correct dysfunctional communication. Fighting the Muslims with bullets will only serve to polarize both sides. The core issue is an issue of worldview. If one side can step out of their bias then reconciliation can become a reality. Until we are willing to do this what we see today will continue.
Our attitude toward the Islamic world is one that has been built out of Western perceptions and reinforced by Western interpretations of Muslim actions. Our reaction has been to understand the actions and words of the Muslim world through our experience and worldview. This approach is flawed. In America we tout tolerance within our borders, but we fail to practice intercultural and interreligious tolerance outside of our borders. We do this to our detriment. Respect is the overarching need if we expect to reestablish constructive relations with many countries in which Muslims are the majority. We are arrogant and mistaken if we think that the Muslim world has little to teach us. We must broaden our understanding and realize that throughout history Islam has created a society that contributed positively and significantly to the development of human civilization. They have created societies in which tolerance was practiced and people of differing religious systems lived together. The basic breakdown in relations between the West and East stems from ignorance and arrogance. If we hope to see a change in relationship between the two sides we, in the West, need to learn to value what Muslims bring to the table and begin acting in a way that considers the impact of our decisions on communities. We need to stop our idolization of individual independence, promote community over isolationism, and re-enter into a relationship—not a contract—with nations around the world. These simple changes are what will significantly and positively alter this battle which is raging around the world today.
Bibliography
Carter, Jimmy
2006. Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Chapman, Colin
2002. Whose Promised Land? The Continuing War Over Israel and Palestine. Grand Rapids: Baker Books
Jabbour, Nabeel
1993. The Rumbling Volcano: Islamic Fundamentalism in Egypt. Pasedena: Mandate Press
Kuhn, Mike
2009. Fresh Vision for the Muslim World: An Incarnational Alternative. Colorado Springs: Authentic Publishing
Parshall, Phil
2006. Bridges to Islam: A Christian Perspective on Folk Islam. Atlanta: Authentic Publishing
Qutb, Seyyid
Milestones. Damascus: Dar Al-Ilm
Respect is a major element that is lacking in the relationship between East and West (Jabbour 1993: 9). The wrong question is to ask who is at fault. The right question is to ask how did this happen and what does our response need to be—not for the purpose of seeing justice accomplished (because justice is not something that will be able to be achieved on all sides), but to see reconciliation and mutual trust become a reality (Chapman 2002: 237). In this assessment, we will take a cursory glance at the situation as it exists and as it is contributing to the further development and spread of fundamental Islam. We will touch on the honest realities of the impact of Western decisions to Muslim communities, attempt to recognize and understand the Arab response to these decisions that have impacted their communities and we will suggest specific changes in the Western approach which is necessary to curb the propagation of fundamentalism in communities directly and indirectly involved in this conflict. Islam is not the enemy. The West is not the enemy. Christianity is not the enemy. The enemy is intolerance and the extreme positions that divide and polarize communities which are struggling to exist. We are not called to impose our policy decisions on others solely for our own benefit. This is the approach that has led to our loss of credibility and reputation serving to build an image as manipulative modern colonialists imposing our Western ideals in an Arab world. We are called to restore honor to the Muslim people who have been humiliated by the insertion of Western policies without regard to the impact of those policies. The discontent our decisions have created has served to turn many Muslims against us and toward an idealistic, nationalistic, accepting community—that is radical fundamental Islam. Our goal should be to re-forge our image by restoring honor and independence to the communities that feel marginalized and forced to react against our imposing figure.
A Cursory Glance
At the heart of the problem is the relationship between Israel and the Arab world. This problem is not new and has been brewing since British forces controlled Egypt in the late 1800s (Jabbour 1993: 78). The roots of the division of the East and West can be traced back to the crusades (and even earlier if one wants to look through history), but the recurring theme throughout modern history is one of Western colonialism exerting its influence and control politically and militarily over Arab nations. Knowledge of this history is critical to understand the elements present in current Arab culture and the collective distrust of the West’s motives. This conflict has been exacerbated by the establishment of the Israeli state regardless of the impact to the existing populace of Palestinians (Chapman 2002: 95) and then the illegitimate seizure of excess land by Israel during the years following 1967 (Carter 2006: 58-59). In spite of UN Article 242 (Carter 2006: 3, 217) calling for an Israeli withdraw from occupied territories and the tone of the Balfour Declaration (Chapman 2002: 65) from 1917 calling for respect of the rights of non-Jewish Palestinians, Israel has continued to fail to comply with global demands and the USA has continued to support Israel’s efforts. With these facts it is difficult to do anything but recognize our bias, the bias of Israel, and the validity of some grievances put forth by Palestine. An additional element that complicates this situation is religion. Christian Zionists and Jewish Zionists are pushing this conflict forward, increasing the contempt Muslims have for the USA, which is seen as a Christian nation (Chapman 2002: 242, 262). Additionally, this perception of religious manipulation and purpose fuels the movement of moderates to accept and actively encourage the desires of fundamental militant Islamic groups (Jabbour 1993: 227).
There are many communities that are involved in this situation and their interests must be considered if we expect to enter into productive relationships with them and hope to see fundamentalism marginalized through their decisions. For this specific conflict we obviously understand that the Israelis and the Palestinians are directly involved. We also understand that the neighbors of Israel are involved, as was visible in the 1967 and 1973 wars. These would include the countries of Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia (Carter 2006: 71). These nations have a vested interest in seeing a resolution in Israel because the result of discontent spreading to their countries as a result of this conflict threatens the security of their own people (Carter 2006: 86, 88). There is also a third set of significant participants that we may not readily see in the West. Those would be Muslims across the world who identify with Islam. Muslims in North Africa, Central Asia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Indonesia, and Western Europe as well as in the USA may not be directly involved in this conflict, but they are united with the Arab Muslim world. They are part of the Umma, as some elements of Islam would say (Jabbour 1993: 206-207), and this means that the dishonor and humiliation experienced by the Palestinians and Arabs through the decisions of the West dishonors them as well and encourages a response from them (Qutb 21). This fact underscores how deeply-seated religion is in this situation on both sides. When the West does not move toward a fair and appropriate resolution, but reinforces a biased position, this encourages more moderate Muslims to align themselves with an active contingent that is set on restoring the honor lost by the presence of an unjust Western entity. The cooperation of and unified decisions of the states involved in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is essential in cultivating an atmosphere among Middle-Eastern Muslims that encourages a moderate and appropriate response to the West and their influence.
The theologizing of this conflict is what leads to extreme elements on both sides having a significant sway on the communities of people involved. Christian Zionists and Zionists feel validated in their pursuit to consolidate and establish the boundaries laid out in the Old Testament (Chapman 2002: 262). The result is an end justifies the means mentality that oppresses the Palestinians. The reaction of the Palestinians and Arabs that feel unfairly persecuted is one that upholds radical militant methods of protecting and establishing a true, just model of civilization that is at war with corrupt, illegitimate governments--jahiliyah (Qutb 129-130).
If a relationship of trust is to be established we must start with a reformation of our own assumptions. We must be willing to evaluate and recognize our biases as we relate to this conflict. We must challenge what we believe to be accepted norms and legitimate responses. Even if we cannot fully correct our biases we can at least come to the table admitting that we have biases and work to minimize the damaging impact of their influence (Chapman 2002: 186-188). Our decisions should not be based solely on the benefits they bring to our side. We need to understand the impact we may have on the communities that our decisions affect.
The Impact of Western Decisions
Choices made through US foreign policy are interpreted in many ways outside our borders (Kuhn 2009: 159). Our credibility is damaged by our consistent independent approach to conflict-resolution and our drive to consolidate our power and influence. That approach of cultural or ethnic superiority, which is what overshadows our decisions and is apparent in our attitude, is an element that has helped shape relations between Christianity and Islam for centuries (Kuhn 2009: 30). That means that our actions are filtered by Muslims as they search for our ulterior motives. Our “just” actions are seen as a secondary motivator and, typically in the Middle-East, our justice is tainted by our greed. Do we give lip service to injustice being wrong, but then take no steps to resolve unjust problems that we have helped create (Carter 2006: 193)? Are we truly moving in to topple this or that government for the freedom of their people and the benefit of the nation or is our primary motivator oil, a sympathetic new government, and an extension of our presence for the purpose of accessing valuable resources?
If we can set aside the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for a moment and look at trends in other states we can see this distrust. The Iraq war is an easy example. A case can be made to justify certain actions taken by the USA as it decided to move into Iraq during the Gulf War as well as when Saddam Hussein was removed, but what was at the core of our motivation for changing the structure there? Our military assault didn’t simply remove a dictator, but it ended up weakening the trust of some of our allies as we constantly manipulated the situation to our advantage. The response by Iran was to aid the resistance and solidify their power base. The US is criticized by many Arab nations for their invasion and it is easy to find someone who is willing to speak out against our continued presence asking if we have come to occupy or if we are interested in leaving. The inconsistency between our words and actions are what has worked to discredited us. Arabs see our speech, but do not see any real action in Israel to stop injustice—what they do see in our actions is an almost unconditional support of Israel (Kuhn 2009: 170).
If we look across many of the current wars in which the US is involved we can find similar issues. In Pakistan and Afghanistan we can see how moderate Muslim communities are torn between fundamental groups and Western forces attempting to convince them of the noble intentions of their presence. The West has a track record of supporting groups (like the Taliban) for the purpose of gaining a victory, but after that one victory is achieved they leave because they got what they needed. This is an example of how the US makes decisions solely for their own benefit. In these situations fundamentalism, for the struggling Muslim, may not be a perfect answer, but neither is loyalty to an untrustworthy foreign nation. It is understandable why many moderates are struggling to determine with whom to align themselves. It would be equally difficult for rational Americans to choose between supporting a militant White Supremacy group wanting to establish a pure community through force and a “trustworthy” Soviet army on US soil. Both sides have significant faults and bridging the differences would be a monumental task.
A major problem in this is a view that as Islam is to Arab states (meaning a comprehensive and appropriate system to manage all spheres of life in submission to Allah), such is Christianity to the West. Muslims say that the Christian system is obviously corrupt and not from Allah. When the Muslim world evaluates the morals and ethics of the USA they understand what they see as a representative illustration of Christianity. Those living in the West know that this is far from true, but the impression made by our culture reinforces the message of fundamentalists. Seyyid Qutb attacked the West saying:
“Look at this capitalism with its monopolies, its usury and whatever else is unjust in it; at this individual freedom, devoid of human sympathy and responsibility for relatives except under the force of law; at this materialistic attitude which deadens the spirit; at this behavior, like animals, which you call ‘Free mixing of the sexes; at this vulgarity which you call ‘emancipation of women,’ at these unfair and cumbersome laws of marriage and divorce, which are contrary to the demands of practical life; and at Islam, with its logic, beauty, humanity and happiness, which reaches the horizons to which man strives but does not reach. It is a practical way of life and its solutions are based on the foundation of the wholesome nature of man.” [sic] (Qutb 139)
The flaws of the West are understood to be threatening the Muslim world as we act in ways that undermine our credibility in Muslim communities. Qutb was a moderate Muslim that was encouraged toward fundamentalism by his experience and the behavior of people he met with in the West. He was able to see first-hand the attitude of the West toward Israel and Egypt (in particular the reaction of Americans to the assassination of Hasan Al-Banna). These factors led to his discontent with Western culture and his reaction to the things he saw (Jabbour 1993: 125). In many ways Qutb’s assertions have basis in truth (Parshall 2006: 105). In other ways he is overstating and misunderstanding elements of our culture. The question for us is: Are we actively reinforcing the misconceptions of Muslims by our actions or are we working to minimize them? Qutb comes to the table with bias, as do we, but the challenge is not reconciling communities that are unbiased. The challenge is reconciling communities that are severely biased. The main question is: Are we, as Westerners, willing to be the ones who step forward with honesty ready to admit our faults and become vulnerable for the purpose of true reconciliation? We are recognizing this need; therefore, it is incumbent upon us to be the initiators of this new dialogue. The first step is to validate and respect the concerns that Muslims have about our behavior and motives. This will allow the governments in these countries to address the needs of their people, enter into new dialogue, work toward lowering discontent, and encouraging the people to raise their grievances without violence because their grievances are being heard and are valid. The West does not need to force submission of its allies. It should respect their freedom to disagree.
Changes That Must Happen in Western Approaches
If we expect to see any normalization in relations between the Muslim and Christian nations we have several things that must change. The West has become ingrown in some areas. The general population has an unbalanced understanding of Islam and fundamentalism. The true scope of what it means to be Muslim is lost to images that reinforce false stereotypes and over-exaggerate the militant Muslim fundamentalists. In order for the West to move forward in our approach we need to admit that not all Muslims are terrorists. In fact, we need to accept the fact that very few Muslims are militant, a minority are fundamental or have fundamental tendencies, and the majority are culturally Muslim and have not made a clear decision as to which direction they are moving—whether toward fundamentalism or toward a moderate stance (Chapman 2002: 252). Westerners need to engage in material that challenges the accepted image of Islam in order to accurately understand and come to an appreciation for the Islamic community. We have many opportunities to find these sources of information. Just a little effort could change a person’s understanding. As a starting point we can look at successful and moderate secular Muslim states, like Turkey, as well as take time to hear what modern, moderate Muslims say about Islam (this could be people like Mahmoud Mohammed Taha, Abdullahi Ahmed An-Naim, or even Stephen Schwartz). If we would be open-minded enough to hear what the Muslim world has to say and suspend judgment until we have been given more information our approach and understanding of Muslims would begin to change. We could come to understand them as people instead of as a category, as struggling individuals like us instead of terrorists determined to destroy what we stand for (Jabbour 1993: 7). Islam is much larger and more complex than we are taught by Western media.
In addition to learning to acknowledge our ignorance of Islam and Muslim states, we need to admit, maybe for the first time, that many unacceptable things have been done in the name of Christianity (Kuhn 2009 31). We also have to realize that many actions of the West are interpreted by Muslims as actions that represent Western Christianity and are seen through the interpretation of their cultural lens (Parshall 2006: 108-110). These elements go back centuries and have developed the current relationship between the Christian and Muslim worlds (Parshall 2006: 106-107). The Crusades, fought under the banner of Western Christianity, is a starting point for us to understand how the Church has been not only preaching the gospel, but has been manipulating religion to accomplish political goals (Kuhn 2009: 25). Muslims interpret the actions of the West as they understand Islam in their society—as a structure that encompasses Religion, Culture, and Politics. They see Christianity as Western and therefore all things Western are reflections of Christianity. We may feel that this is not accurate, but it is how they understand us regardless. When Christianity is represented as a conquering religion it is easy to understand the reaction of Muslims toward our presence. We need to enter into the experience of Muslims and understand how they view our influence. We need to appreciate the fact that our political and social impact is sometimes not acceptable to Muslims. If we look at Qutb, it is obvious that Western ideals and Christianity has negatively impacted Muslim society (Qutb 111). If we’re honest we can see how our political decisions have manipulated governments under the cloak of religion, as in Egypt with England or the USA and Israel. Our foreign policy and lack of an exertion of influence to hold Israel accountable for their settlements in the West Bank and Gaza reinforce the perception that the West is unjust. The West’s failure to act as a fair moderator between the Israelis and Palestinians, allowing the Palestinian land to be brutally divided (Carter 2006: 194), tacitly encouraging Israel to corral the Palestinians on their own land and settle there (Carter 2006: 120), and accepting the deaths of innocent Palestinians in the name of the defense of Israel have damaged the credibility and confidence the Arab nations may have had in the USA (Carter 2006: 16). Our hypocrisy in failing to enforce reasonable UN resolutions, which Israel is not honoring, dishonors the oppressed Palestinians and, in turn, dishonors the reputation of Muslim communities as a whole (Carter 2006: 208-209). We may give lip service to the opposition of some of Israel’s actions, but we take no action to curb it (Carter 2006: 193).
The main response we need to have is a reshaping of our position based on new information that we have access to. This is not information that is hidden, but it is information that we need to actively seek out and synthesize in an unbiased way with the goal of reforming our prejudices toward Muslims and breaking down our inaccurate and unfair stereotypes about Muslims. We have to enter into their experience in order to see our actions through their eyes. They have a worldview and historical experience that has shaped their culture and perspective, as do we. We are not obligated to accept everything they believe, but we need to be able to step outside of our structured world in order to understand that their world looks and operates differently. This is a way to renew and reestablish our relationship with Muslim states. Mutual respect and trust will go a long way to reshape our approach.
Conclusion
If we begin to take this challenging direction in the West then we will see changes. These changes will show themselves on many levels in our culture and in our approach to international relations. We have a responsibility to act as transformational elements on a human level. Not only does our government need to change, but we need to change individually and accept our role in bridging the gap between the West and East. We need to hear a call to divorce ourselves from Christian Zionism which is working to the detriment of our relationship with Muslims. We need to reevaluate the impact our decisions make in politics. Do the people we vote for uphold our principles or are we unwittingly contradicting our core values in the approach our politicians take on the world stage? There is an inconsistency between what we say we believe as a people and how our actions impact communities overseas. If we stand for justice and freedom we should not oppress and manipulate countries into submission.
We do not have all of the answers, but the Muslims are not our enemies. Their basic moral fabric is in agreement with the Judeo-Christian values that we accept in our culture. Even some fundamentalists espouse ideals that we agree with (maybe more frequently than we want to admit) (Qutb 97-98). We can learn a lot from what Muslims say and believe. We should not be in conflict and competition, but in unity and agreement on many things. We must stop categorizing and generalizing Islam. Crossing into a relationship with a Muslim will reveal the fact that Muslims are people struggling to cope with the same realities we face in the USA. If we are willing to listen to the stories of Muslims we will realize that many of their reactions are justified and born out of true tragedy (Chapman 2002: 75-77). If we were in their place we may have made similar decisions. Muslims are not people who are different in their essence, but they are people with different experiences. We are obligated, as a country and people who recognize that there is a problem, to step out of our ethnocentric arrogance and move to a position of vulnerability in order to bring the two sides together.
We may not have all of the answers, but it is obvious that warring against something or someone we don’t understand is a poor solution to correct dysfunctional communication. Fighting the Muslims with bullets will only serve to polarize both sides. The core issue is an issue of worldview. If one side can step out of their bias then reconciliation can become a reality. Until we are willing to do this what we see today will continue.
Our attitude toward the Islamic world is one that has been built out of Western perceptions and reinforced by Western interpretations of Muslim actions. Our reaction has been to understand the actions and words of the Muslim world through our experience and worldview. This approach is flawed. In America we tout tolerance within our borders, but we fail to practice intercultural and interreligious tolerance outside of our borders. We do this to our detriment. Respect is the overarching need if we expect to reestablish constructive relations with many countries in which Muslims are the majority. We are arrogant and mistaken if we think that the Muslim world has little to teach us. We must broaden our understanding and realize that throughout history Islam has created a society that contributed positively and significantly to the development of human civilization. They have created societies in which tolerance was practiced and people of differing religious systems lived together. The basic breakdown in relations between the West and East stems from ignorance and arrogance. If we hope to see a change in relationship between the two sides we, in the West, need to learn to value what Muslims bring to the table and begin acting in a way that considers the impact of our decisions on communities. We need to stop our idolization of individual independence, promote community over isolationism, and re-enter into a relationship—not a contract—with nations around the world. These simple changes are what will significantly and positively alter this battle which is raging around the world today.
Bibliography
Carter, Jimmy
2006. Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Chapman, Colin
2002. Whose Promised Land? The Continuing War Over Israel and Palestine. Grand Rapids: Baker Books
Jabbour, Nabeel
1993. The Rumbling Volcano: Islamic Fundamentalism in Egypt. Pasedena: Mandate Press
Kuhn, Mike
2009. Fresh Vision for the Muslim World: An Incarnational Alternative. Colorado Springs: Authentic Publishing
Parshall, Phil
2006. Bridges to Islam: A Christian Perspective on Folk Islam. Atlanta: Authentic Publishing
Qutb, Seyyid
Milestones. Damascus: Dar Al-Ilm