The Great Arab Silence
Dean
Fouad Ajami writes:
The remarkable thing about the terror in Iraq is the silence with which it is greeted in other Arab lands. Grant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi his due: He has been skilled at exposing the pitilessness on the loose in that fabled Arab street and the moral emptiness of so much of official Arab life. The extremist is never just a man of the fringe: He always works at the outer edges of mainstream life, playing out the hidden yearnings and defects of the dominant culture. Zarqawi is a bigot and a killer, but he did not descend from the sky. He emerged out of the Arab world's sins of omission and commission; in the way he rails against the Shiites (and the Kurds) he expresses that fatal Arab inability to take in "the other." A terrible condition afflicts the Arabs, and Zarqawi puts it on lethal display: an addiction to failure, and a desire to see this American project in Iraq come to a bloody end.
Zarqawi's war, it has to be conceded, is not his alone; he kills and maims, he labels the Shiites rafida (rejecters of Islam), he charges them with treason as "collaborators of the occupiers and the crusaders," but he can be forgiven the sense that he is a holy warrior on behalf of a wider Arab world that has averted its gaze from his crimes, that has given him its silent approval. He and the band of killers arrayed around him must know the meaning of this great Arab silence.
Further:
The drumbeats against Iraq that originate from the League of Arab States and its Egyptian apparatchiks betray the panic of an old Arab political class afraid that there is something new unfolding in Iraq--a different understanding of political power and citizenship, a possible break with the culture of tyranny and the cult of Big Men disposing of the affairs--and the treasure--of nations. It is pitiable that an Egyptian political class that has abdicated its own dream of modernity and bent to the will of a pharaonic regime is obsessed with the doings in Iraq. But this is the political space left open by the master of the realm. To be sure, there is terror in the streets of Iraq; there is plenty there for the custodians of a stagnant regime in Cairo to point to as a cautionary tale of what awaits societies that break with "secure" ways. But the Egyptian autocracy knows the stakes. An Iraqi polity with a modern social contract would be a rebuke to all that Egypt stands for, a cruel reminder of the heartbreak of Egyptians in recent years. We must not fall for Cairo's claims of primacy in Arab politics; these are hollow, and Iraq will further expose the rot that has settled upon the political life of Egypt.
But as the saying goes, read the whole thing.
Remarkable essay. Thanks to Tall Dave for point it it out to me.
As you know, I have mostly refrained from any direct criticism of you even when I have disagreed with you. So take that into consideration when you read what follows.
How come when Fouad Ajami says "A terrible condition afflicts the Arabs" he is not a bigot?
When he says about Abu Musab al-Zarqawi "he can be forgiven the sense that he is a holy warrior on behalf of a wider Arab world that has averted its gaze from his crimes, that has given him its silent approval," he is not called names by you.
But when I have said the similar things about Arabs and Muslims, you have implied that I am a hateful Christian bigot. When I pointed out an article by Bruce Thornton about the pathologies of the so-called moderate Muslims, you mocked "The Big Bad Muslim Threat." Then you proceeded to divert attention with the tired argument that Christians have not been perfect either - as if the sins of one group absolve a totally different group from any responsibility whatsoever.
And when I failed to respond to a gratuituous anecdote about a single Muslim, you labeled me and others "unpatriotic hypocrites." (link) Of course, Stephen Malcolm Anderson had the best answer to your "Face of the Enemy? question: It seems to be your position that unless I become a certified Muslim cheer leader, I cannot criticize the Arab world, or the religion that drives its culture. Certainly, you have mocked that position when it comes to other issues. You don't countenance the idea that only women can speak to women's issues, or that blacks are the only legitimate spokespeople for racial issues. But in this instance, you seem to have a blind spot. So what gives? Of Course, as you say in this post, insisting on 100% consistency is foolish.
Maybe you are a little uncomfortable with true believers, or at least with the idea of objective truth, or perhaps there is another answer that I cannot discern from your writings. Since we have never formally met, it is hard to know and difficult to make any personal judgments.
But if really and truly believing that Christianity is the one true path to God makes me a bigot, then I suppose I am a bigot. That belief necessarily means that I believe all other religions are lies and subversions of the truth. But - and this is important - it is not necessary for me to hate those with whom I disagree. Have I prejudged the adherents of other religions to be tragically wrong? Yes. I suppose that makes me prejudiced. But does it make me a bigot? Do my beliefs inform my politics? Yes, they do. Should I therefore recuse myself from any policy discussions that might be affected by my beliefs?
I am not angry with you or with anyone else for criticizing Christianity or Christians. To me, it comes with the territory. Being criticized for my beliefs is part of the price of being a Christian. Simultaneously, I don't think I need to be sensitive to the feelings of Muslims. I believe their religion is completely in error and affects their culture in dramatically awful ways. I also think Stephen Malcom Anderson's polytheism is sending him down a path to eternal destruction. But at least his fellow travelers are not flying airplanes into sky scrapers, or bombing grade schools.
I think that people who view our current conflict from a purely secular point of view sometimes miss the point of the war. There is a culture clash occuring, as much as secularists are loath to admit it.
If Muslims believe 1) that their religion is true, and 2) that we can have that dispute peacefully, then we can coexist in a modern democracy. But they must be willing to suffer scathing criticism without resorting to violence just as Christians suffer it in many parts of our society. For the violent proponents of Islam, there is no path to compatibility.
You have rightly pointed out that many Muslims live under some form of democracy. So I am willing to acknowledge that some of my criticism may have been off target. It is possible to create some separation between politics and religion. The separation between religion and culture is more problematic. Perhaps it is the combination of Islam with Arabism that is the threat. But there is a religious component to the threat we face, and ignoring that is a recipe for disaster.
This is similar to the argument monarchs once made to perpetuate their rule. They claimed a divine right to govern, when in fact it was raw ambition which drove their actions, and the moral authority of religion was used to squelch dissent.
This was the recipe for hundreds of years of conflict within the Christian world - especially when potentates argued about who truly held divine authority.
The short form then: I often defend Christians and Christianity from their harshest detractors. I see this as no different.
If I wanted to I could cherry-pick some bible quotes and point to some historical figures to show the basic nature of Christianity as embracing slavery, embracing tyrannical government, and more. Just for example I can site you chapter and verse if you ask where Paul states quite clearly that rebellion against rulers is forbidden, which was the basis of the Divine Right of Kings that held sway over Europe for well over a thousand years, and which caused many Christians in America to vociferously opposed the revolution in the 1770s and to fight for the King--not for love of him but because God made him their king, as Paul clearly stated to their minds. Many of them took up and left for Canada or other British territories when the rebels won, saying that these united States were satanic, evil, and would be doomed to perdition.
Cherry-picking koranic verses to make the faith look bad, and scoffing at moderate and liberal-minded muslims is, to my mind, an excellent way to vindicate the worldview of Osama Bin Laden.
It's also a great way to encourage muslims to say, "You know, Osama's right--we can never make peace with these Christian dogs, look how they tell lies about us, mock us, mock our faith!"
Fouad Ajami is speaking of his brothers. He's shaming them by pointing to how they're betraying their fellow muslims, betraying their fellow Arabs. He isn't endorsing the vicious extremists as fundamentally correct, nor endorsing the idea that America is engaged in a Christian war against Islam.
I really wish more people on the right would be trying to reach out and talk to muslims rather than scoffing and tacitly endorsing the viewpoint of the terrorists.