The lack of outrage in the Muslim world over the hijacking of their religion is striking. The silence is deafening when Shiites murder a hundred Sunni students in an Iraqi school or when Sunnis blow up one of the holiest Shiite mosques. Violent protests break out all around the world over a Danish cartoon, or the naming of a stuffed animal in Sudan, but not over suicide bombers killing a hundred Muslims a day in Iraq.
There is a parallel to this phenomenon in Black Africa in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Many African nations gained their independence from their historical colonizers during these decades. African leaders were emerging from jungle camps from which they had fought rebel wars of independence. The world cheered as these independence movements took over governments.
But the world ignored or excused the brutality with which many of these new regimes governed. Anyone, African or otherwise, who dared criticize Patrice Lumumba, Haile Sallasie, even Idi Amin and Daniel Arap Moi and other "African leaders" was vilified as a racist colonist sympathizer. The world cheered as Zaire nationalized its industries; it supported Robert Mugabe as he began the destruction of Zimbabwe's economy.
The result of that refusal to criticize brutality and incompetence is seen in the horrific slaughters, the famines, the near total destruction of civil society across the entire African continent. Today Africa is a hole into which the dreams and aspirations of millions of people have fallen.
The Arab Middle-East may be heading in the same direction, despite the death of Yassir Arafat, long the world's darling, despite his massive corruption, incompetence and brutality. Because it contains most of the world's oil, the West pays far more attention to the Middle East than it ever did to Black Africa. Yet the world excuses horrible, anachronistic treatment of women in the Arab world where leaders deign to increase or decrease the flow of petroleum in an attempt to adjust its price to suit western economies. We go along with dictators as brutal as those African ones because they occasionally throw a terrorist to the wolves.
But throughout it all, the Muslim "street" only becomes outraged when some symbolic icon or Islam itself is "disrespected". Let a father murder his daughter after she is raped, and that's just traditional Islamic values, and all is quiet. Let a teacher name a teddy bear "Mohammed" and the calls for her violent death by torture ring out.
If the Middle East descends into the same hole that has swallowed Black Africa, the world will return to the Middle Ages that many Muslim mullahs so fervently pray for. Will Muslims wake up to this danger before it is too late and begin protesting and issuing fatwahs against the hateful spewings from their madrassahs? Civil society can only hope so.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 26
Good article
Looks like a DB1 showed up.
We, the United States, as the reigning superpower (temporarily, at least) should be that unifying force. Unfortunately, our present government seems intent on alienating the very people from whom we need cooperation. Let's hope that changes when we get rid of the neocons next year.
Re Africa: There are a few bright spots: Kenya, Botswana, Zambia and South Africa have stable democracies and economies that are doing okay. Of course, Mugabe in Zimbabwe is a lunatic who has ruined what was a thriving nation. Tourism is the biggest business in Africa, and the countries that have learned to exploit that are doing quite well. Terrorism is the big enemy of tourism. The WTC attacks were devastating to African tourism...everybody was afraid to get on an airplane. Since then, things have improved dramatically. You are right that a lot of countries are still in trouble, though.
As long as anyone is mistreated or misused in a society, it is still a failure. What the world needs is a Muslim Gandhi to help lead so many unhappy people from a gruesome future.
But a Muslim killed Gandhi.
How long before a Muslim kills a Muslim Gandhi?
We could be a unifying force in the Middle East, but we'll need a far more enlightened foreign policy than anyone in the Republican Party is likely able to muster. What kind of encouragement would it take for the Mulsim moderates to begin to speak out? As you have pointed out in earlier articles, speaking out against these animals is like painting a target on your chest.
Michael Springmann, head US consular official in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, later claims that during this period he is "repeatedly ordered… to issue [more than 100] visas to unqualified applicants." He turns them down, but is repeatedly overruled by superiors. [BBC, 11/6/2001; ST. PETERSBURG TIMES, 11/25/2001] In one case, two Pakistanis apply for visas to attend a trade show in the US, but they are unable to name the trade show or city in which it will be held. When Springmann denies them a visa, he gets "an almost immediate call from a CIA case officer, hidden in the commercial section [of the consulate], that I should reverse myself and grant these guys a visa." Springmann refuses, but the decision is reversed by the chief of the consular section. Springmann realizes that even the ambassador, Walter Cutler, is aware of the situation, which becomes "more brazen and blatant" as time goes on. On one occasion Springmann is even told, "If you want a job in the State Department in future, you will change your mind." [CBC RADIO ONE, 7/3/2002; TRENTO, 2005, PP. 344-6] Springmann loudly complains to numerous government offices, but no action is taken. He is fired and his files on these applicants are destroyed. He later learns that recruits from many countries fighting for bin Laden against Russia in Afghanistan were funneled through the Jeddah office to get visas to come to the US, where the recruits would travel to train for the Afghan war. According to Springmann, the Jeddah consulate was run by the CIA and staffed almost entirely by intelligence agents. This visa system may have continued at least through 9/11, and 11 of the 19 9/11 hijackers received their visas through Jeddah (see November 2, 1997-June 20, 2001), possibly as part of this program (see October 9, 2002 and October 21, 2002). [BBC, 11/6/2001; ST. PETERSBURG TIMES, 11/25/2001; CBC RADIO ONE, 7/3/2002; ASSOCIATED PRESS, 7/17/2002 ; FOX NEWS, 7/18/2002]
It's not just the Muslims and those subtle small intolerances and hate-mongerings are destructive where-ever they occur. I can't see a way of combating it except refusing to be part of the hate/fear party. However, that puts your life on the line (as Gandhi and King are evidence of). Nothing changes, however, until someone does that. And the impact of those lives, those individuals who do so, even if they themselves don't live long, lives on far longer, often than the hatred that killed them.
On the other hand, it's easy for me to say. I'm safely esconced here. My family isn't at risk and neither am I. It's something else entirely when you or your loved ones can be killed for you doing the right thing.
I wish I knew an easy answer.
I can't think of anything better any group can be than a good example. I don't think we're there.
Chive seems to forget that most of the world, while it contains many Muslims, is run by relatively civilized governments. There are sections of London where Pakistanis congregate, but some of the mosques there spew the most vile hatred. A few moderates speak out, but for the most part, what we hear is "Yes, but look at what the Israelis (or Americans, or autocratic Arab governments) have done."
"Just silly" to expect more from these Muslim communities? Absolutely not, Chive. And "hypocritical?" Insulting.