Recently I orchastrated a "Panel Discussion on Islam" at my local community college. (Although I have graduated, I remain active in bringing culture and education to the community.) While working on my B.A. I enrolled in an "Introduction to and History of Islam" and realized how ignorant most Westerners are when it comes to understanding Islam, especially in light of the world situation today. The more I learned, the more I felt compelled to do something positive, to provide insight to my community and begin to erase the ignorance of Westerners and shed light on the truth of Islamic culture; what it is versus what we are led to believe it is. So I began the task of putting the Panel together and after the presentation I was very pleased with the results. What follows is my re-evaluation of Islam, the War in Iraq and the delicate nature of relations between countries around the world.
The history I received as a child, as it pertains to anything Islam, was poor at best. In reality my instruction failed to give any credit to Muslims for their contributions to world culture; history was re-written to suit the needs of the West. Left out were mathematical contributions, preservation of the philosophies of the Golden Age of Greece as well as contributions by Muslim philosophers of many meaningful concepts. There was no mention of the brutality of the Crusades; instead they were portrayed as noble and necessary. We were the victors, after all, were we not? Not a glimpse was given to the closeness of Muslim and Christian religious ideologies; not one sentence contained any reference to our being "Brothers of the Book." At best I am disappointed in the slanted view of my education but times they are a-changing, and there is some recognition to Islam in current curriculum, although we still have a long way to go.
"Operation Iraqi Freedom" is a misnomer. It is War, plain and simple, as well as the colonialization of Iraq. Let's face it, we are setting up our own government, or at least one we, meaning Bush, approve of. Our troops are storming into residences, holding people hostage until we decide whether or not they are "terrorists." Even at home the "Patriot Act", another misnomer, allows the government the ability to circumvent our Constitution and deny basic American rights to anyone deemed hostile, (does anyone remember the "Acts of Sedition?") We saw the folly of our ways over 200 years ago, so why can we not see them now? Instead, we are stuck in an ideological and dangerous war; on the surface it is with Iraq, but underneath in the belly of the beast it is against Islam.
It is easy to see how Muslims may view us at war with their religion. America and Western culture dominates much of the world; consumerism and degrading moral values are at its forefront. Commercialism chooses appearances over substances and half-naked beauties are on billboards across America, yet we view the burka as sexist. As with past cultures, America's "white-man" appears to speak with "forked tongue" and we say one thing yet do another. Why in the world would Islam, or any other culture, view us as the best path to follow? We espouse tolerence, then use callous terms when speaking of our "crusade" in Iraq, (Bush's words, not mine!)
Let's look at a common question of Islam and how its "demeaning to women." As devil's advocate, let's say that there are many communities and individuals in the world, including some in the Islamic culture, which promote the subservience of women. Heck, there are many communities and individuals in Christianity which believe in man's dominance of women. The Qur'an gives as much voice to the equality of women as do many parts of the Bible. Sure there are references to man's role as the breadwinner, but this was a fact in most of the Western Civilizations prior to the early 1900s. The Qur'an commands that a woman receive recourse when wronged and property in a divorce. The Qur'an also provides for monogamy unless a man can treat all his wives equally. This provision is recognized as impossible later in the Qur'anic Verses, thereby many Muslims deem polygamy as being prohibited by the Qur'an. So is Western culture truly superior?
So the Iraqi and other Muslim populations watch as we strongarm our way into their culture. We bring our ideals of government, economics, religion and culture and force it into their lives. I wonder why there is hostility? Would we not react the same way to a Muslim occupying army if they were on American shores? This is a large part of America's problems and troubles with the Islamic world. Since we "know better", we cannot see their perspective. And the tanks roll on...
When we entered Iraq and we already knew it would be a piece of cake; the Gulf War proved that. Onward we marched and "liberated" the Iraqis. We pushed the Butcher of Baghdad into hiding and toppled his statue. Yeah! Cheering! Excitement! There were many proud and happy Iraqis. We were welcomed with open arms by much of the population. Celebrations were everywhere; "We Are The Champions...of the World..." Okay, now get out.
In all this excitement we forgot a couple of key points. One, we kinda forgot to secure arsenals of weapons when we disbanded the army. Oops! Many "insurgents" are now using these weapons to kill other Iraqis as well as U.S. soldiers. Oh, and by the way, there was this struggle for power and profit between the minority Sunni, who ruled under Sadaam, and the majority Shi'a, who were oppressed for decades. Oops! We never thought about that in all the commotion! Soooo Sorrrrrry!
So here we are left with our tidy whities showing. We have created more resentment and fueled more extremists in our occupation of their country. The gratitude is gone. Soldiers have lost their lives, spouses have lost their partner, children have lost a parent. Some of our soldiers have perpetrated atrocities which are quietly swept under the rug. We won't mention the billions of dollars in profits which certain American companies have reaped from our endeavor. Our training techniques are not enough to overcome the feuds and power struggles between ideologies. So what choice do we have? Like the spirit in the "Amityville Horror," told the occupants, we need to "Get out!" We can't completely disband, but our only choice is to move on. Of course realistically we must leave the Iraqis with some help, but this should come in the form of assistance from their neighbors providing Muslim troops to keep peace. We should only provide advice and leave the rest to the Iraqis and a coalition of U.N. sanctioned troops, comprised mainly of troops from surrounding Muslim countries. There must be an equitable division of resource profits between the Sunni, Shi'a and Kurdish population; much of the current Sunni/Shi'a violence relates to the division of population and resources. The Sunni will be left out of any income gains if the country is divided along population ideological lines. (Today's wall is a joke, providing further tensions and resistance to the segregation that America has provided as a solution.) Might there be a possibility that a future Iraqi government may not be quite so friendly to America? It's a chance we must take because the status quo is not only failing, but causing severe harm to Iraqis, American troops, and our position in the eyes of the world.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 31
I'd give the Shiites about a year to exterminate the Sunnis. Anybody wana make a pot on it?
As far as us forcing our system of governing (democracy) on their culture is hypocritical. What more can I say to destroy that argument than a 75% voter turnout facing possible death. Would you vote? Probably not! So who are we forcing such a bad systgem on? I would say it's the minority radicals that want all the power. Since you obviously think Democracy is so bad, tell me. If you gave 35 million people a one time vote for one leader and no more voting rights or the right to keep their vote. What do you think the outcome would be. It seems to me you are arguing on the side of the Adolf Hitlers, Joeseph Stallins, Sadams, Kim Jungs, Poe Pots, of the world. Shame on your ignorance. Its only because of people like you and your naieve views that the most powerful and peacrfull loving nation in the history of the world could loose a war to same nuts with srategically placed bombs.
I agree that many mistakes have been made waging this war. I challenge you to critisize with forsight not hindsight.
I also would like you to think about who is with you on the bash Bush wagon. If our policy in Iraq were creating more terrorists, why would Ossama vote for Kerry? I feel this point must be explained, since common sence is not your strongest asset. I only hope you can understand in spite of my gramatical errors that you can see what I am telling you.
You see, when Ossama and his fellow nuts were plannung 911. They did not hate George Bush, they hated us and our values. You see the most liberal muslim would be the furthest right Christian you could think of. Pat Bucannin- get that shit out of here. Ossama wants a holy war against us. If G.W ware creating all these holy warriors as you claim why does Ossama hate him so much? The irony is that you liberals and your moral less living has created a magnet for islamic fassisist terrorism that our God fearing (not perfect) President has to defend, and in so doing (to state the obvious) has to do what he sees nessacary to defend. Thankfully and unfourtunatly for you and me many men and women sacrificed their lives so that we can speak our minds without fear.
I believe that our founding fathers gave us one of the greatest philosophies ever written in the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. It grants us broad sweeping freedoms which have stood the test of time, (even they didn't think it would last this long!) Our ability to debate such issues as the situation in Iraq is a result of these philosophies. America may be wounded, but she is not dead. The Gather.com community is living proof of this.
Unfortunately, I did not state in the article that the Qur'an itself provides that there be a rule of Muslims by majority rule - democracy. Although there are many verses which were written as guidance during the death threats on Muhammad and his followers early in the history of Islam, (many Arab tribes felt that God was a direct threat to their power), culminating with the first hajj to Medina and the triumphant return to Mecca to destroy the idols which were worshipped at the Kabba, (reminiscent of Moses destroying the idols upon his return from the Mount), the Qur'an commands war only upon invading armies or armies which seek to destroy Islam. The Verse continues to require that Muslims spare all women, children, holy men and other non-combatants. It is in this that Al Qaeda has disobeyed God's word, much as the Christians disobeyed God's "...love one another..." rule during the Crusades and throughout much of history.
The men and women who have lost their lives in Iraq were not "sacrificing their lives so WE could speak our minds without fear," but invading a brutal, but soveriegn government with false accusations for our reasoning. The loss of their lives is most tragic, and continues daily. Sadaam was the Butcher of Baghdad, and a majority of Iraqi people were happy to see him fall. I speak to this in my description of the "liberation" of Iraq. Where we failed was in the mistakes made during the initial reasoning of invasion, (do you remember the weapons of mass destruction and assisting Al Qaeda angle? All false!), failure to procure the arsenals left by the Iraqi army, and no clear method of how to provide assistance to the Iraqi people to stabilize their country. Now we are neck deep in the muck of appearances of occupation rather than liberation, resource division disagreements, "ethnic" disputes, and daily bombardment of the result of these issues.
Other neighboring countries have offered to help, but we, (Bush and his regime), have refused their assistance. But there is no other option as we, the U.S., Britain, and other European forces, are creating more damage than we are curing. We cannot in good faith simply pack up and leave, but we can ask the U.N. to place a coalition of Muslim forces in Iraq to support the Iraqi police and army and continue efforts to train them and keep peace. This coalition must include both Sunni and Shi'a to insure there is no prejudice and the world must ask that ideological and economic differences be set aside, in the best interest of Iraq, to provide stability in this emerging nation.
I apologize for leaving out my devotion to democracy and the Qur'an's references to democracy. That was erroneous on my part, and should have been included to provide balance. I truly love America, but that doesn't mean, in the words of O'Reilly, that I have to love everything my government does. Our founding fathers were very careful to insure that Americans would be allowed opposition voice and recourse for their feelings to keep democracy alive and well. There have been some discrepencies, such as the Acts of Sedition which were thrown out during Jefferson's presidency, and today's Patriot Acts, (there are others but I am going on too long), and hopefully this too will be repealed. Again Andrew, thanks for your voice, for I am glad to listen to all sides of the issues and do not confine myself to adhering strictly to one mindset, but my intentions were in line with your tribute to democracy, just not in the same way.
This is not crucial to your argument, Genine, but the Christian Crusaders are generally understood to have lost the Crusades.
Daniel A.: "The worse Iraq gets, the more they can gloat about how stupid we are." Between gloating episodes, the neighbors are nervous. An unstable Iraq heightens the risk of sectarian uprisings at home and greater regional problems. This is probably most true of Saudi Arabia. Your concerns about genocide are speculative, and more importantly need to be measured against the level of violence now seen.
Melody..."This land is their land, this land is our land..." (Iraq, not America.)
It should be noted, though, that there definitely are excesses and abuses in Islamic countries and culture--as there are in our own. Radicalism, it seems, always leads to such excesses. (The fear-mongering fomented by neo-cons which has led to the erosion of our constitutional rights is a case in point.)
And it's an unfortunate fact that those who adhere to the Islamic faith, like many who proclaim their Christian faith, often to fail to live up to the precepts contained in their holy texts.
Our paternalistic attitudes, and tendency to attempt to "persuade" others to accept our values at the point of a gun are not the best way to win "hearts and minds", obviously.
As R.D. points out so succinctly--though it bears repeating--it already IS too late for the 3,300+ of our best and bravest young men and women who are now resting, in peace we hope, in their government-issued (GI) coffins.
Andrew? "Common sense is not your strongest asset"? Really? I'm sorry to have to break it to you this way, but logic is not YOUR strongest asset. Neither is your connection to reality (not unlike your Hero-in-Chief). "Why would Osama vote for Kerry"? Damn! What precinct did Osama vote in I wonder?
I am truly sorry that I forgot to realize that I am new to Gather; there is no way you could have known my position and reasoning before the Iraqi situation began. So I must inform you that I predicted the very situation we are in right now the minute I heard that Bush intended to proceed into Iraq. I even predicted that he would invade Iraq, believing that Daddy left Sadaam in power for a reason since he was fully capable, even advised by his Generals, (Stormin' Norman and Colin Powell), to remove Sadaam. It would have been a much wiser choice, since we had the U.N. and other nations behind us and our pulling out and leaving Sadaam in created a negative image in the minds of the Iraqi people who were suffering under his brutal regime.
At least that is cleared up, but like Paul G., I wonder where bin Laden voted too? Unfortunately I missed that Fox news alert!
When will the human species ever grow up?
Christopher: Nice Q & A. Without quarreling about whether or not the American people actual voted Bush in, (he did NOT win majority rule), we shouldn't have to live with the consequences of his follies, (although they weren't follies for his wealth or power...those remain strong), but we do. Even when we finally get a new President, no matter which party he is from, he cannot possibly have enough time to undo all the damage Bush has perpetrated upon America and the world, even if he stays in office for 2 full terms!
PREDICTION: So Andrew cannot say I didn't use foresight, Bush will pass on this war to the possibility of a Democratic President who, because of the mess left him will spend all his four years performing damage control; if he pulls the troops out, the chaos which will exist no matter when we pull out will be blamed on him, if he stays the damage to our relations with the world will grow further and continue to deplete our resources ensuing in a complete chaotic domestic economic forecast. Either way, he'll lose, and the GOP will use this as ammunition to promote their candidate in 2012! I pray I am wrong on this one!
"Its only because of people like you and your naive views that the most powerful and peaceful loving nation in the history of the world could lose a war to same nuts with strategically placed bombs." That is the most disingenuous piece of tripe I've seen written in a long time. A peace loving nation doesn't formulate lies so they can invade no matter how bad the ruler is. A peace loving nation defends itself, it doesn't go looking to make wars.
"I agree that many mistakes have been made waging this war. I challenge you to critisize with forsight not hindsight."
Many of us, even those who opposed the war from the start, realized that the ammunition dumps needed to be secured. We also in the exercise of good sense should have known you don't destroy the entire infrastructure and the peace-keeping facilities in a country and not create chaos. That's not rocket science but just good common sense. It doesn't take enormous forethought to realize that if an insurgency starts you crush it, not sit around and wait for it to fester and become entrenched. The biggest thing you do is that you never ever underestimate the determination of your enemy. It is better to react as if your enemy is powerful than to write them off as on their last legs. It also doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that you need a detailed plan with milestones (not timetables but milestones) for a successful occupation. I defy you to show me where this is detailed.
"If our policy in Iraq were creating more terrorists, why would Ossama vote for Kerry?" Simple to answer. Osama didn't vote for Kerry. He can't vote for anyone. He's not a registered voter in this country. That clears that up, I hope. By the way if you're asking why Osama endorsed Kerry if Iraq was a breeding ground for terrorists, the answer is dirt simple. Kerry would have ended the war. Osama knew that Americans are a contrary lot and many would vote against Kerry if he came out and spoke up in his behalf. It's called reverse psychology and some of us fell for it. However, that being said, Kerry defeated Kerry in the end.
You are entirely right about Osama and his fellow nuts cases hating the United States. I'm not sure that Osama hates him now. Far to the contrary, Dubya is probably the very best thing to happen to Osama's organization. Osama doesn't hate Dubya. Without Mr. Bush we wouldn't have a shooting gallery in which new Muslim fanatics could practice and learn their skills on live American targets.
I am frankly amazed that there are still people out there so blind that they still think Mr. Bush is a hero despite the failure to act in Iraq, despite the scandals rocking his administration, and despite Mr. Bush being caught in one lie and one abuse of power after another. Talk about head in the sand.
I do agree that Mr. Bush has acted very - um, "royally" comes to mind - unilaterally, not only with regard to the prosecution of his emotionally charged war in Iraq, but also on many domestic issues. And that too many Americans are on the "if I'd known then what I know now" bandwagon. Mr. Bush has proven to my satisfaction that, in his opinion, buttressed by his yes-people advisors, what's good for the ultra-rich and the corporations is what the rest of us will just have to tolerate. It's not as though he's ever had the experience of holding down a real job and stretching a paycheck to put food on the table, so just how in touch with Americans can he be? And given that, how can he possibly have a clue what to do about or with a country where the people think and believe differently? Yes, we need to get out of Iraq, and yes, we cannot continue the arrogant practice of acting as the world's police force, believing that we need only export our own policies and practices for other cultures and peoples to accept the wisdom of our ways. In the long run, let Mr. Bush go down in history as the ignominiously ignorant, arrogant, sanctimonious reactionary he is. And "we" elected him - twice! What does that say about us?
The burka was brought up simply because that is the excuse many people use to place Islam in the backwoods title. There is a very good book about a British journalist who, back before the Shah was deposed, traveled around Iran disguised as a male. When she did have to wear the burka in larger cities, due to her passport as female, what she found oppressive at first became slightly liberating. She was not harrassed, not judged by her "beauty" or sex. She stated that Western culture oppresses females in a different manner, but a rose is still a rose, no matter how much we are told we are "liberated!"
Islamic culture has, like any other culture, gone through phases of suppression of new thoughts/progressions, and progressivism. Right now, it is on a tightrope and will most likely move forward as more moderate voices become louder. Many Muslims are simply rebellious; desiring to maintain their own identity while combating daily against the imposed "western" ideology. Many Islamic progressive voices are attempting to deal with being a Muslim while becoming modern. This issue is passed to the back burner because the militant extremists are monopolizing the media today.
Great debate and comments! Keep the faith all!
I want some good answers class.
Even Bush himself, on video at a fundraiser, which began something to the effect of "You are my base...the haves and the have-mores...", he made a joke about the Weapons of Mass Destruction, by saying, "oops, are they over here? mmmm, are they over there?" This is something one does not normally do on such a serious subject as:
1. The reason for invading a country and starting a "war."
2. Sending American men and women to their death to go on this "Easter egg hunt."
3. Something which has been proven an "untruth."
If I find a way to view this on the web, I'll get back to ya, because I saw this on the regular video connection of television, not the web, but I'm sure someone somewhere has a copy in this day of share and share alike.
I'm sorry to disappoint you, but the evidence just keeps mounting...
There was an intercepted e-mail from Tony Blair to his aides which basically stated, (again, writing from memory), "We must find a way to validate this (war) with the British (people/parliament?) because (Bush) is going ahead no matter what," in reference to Bush's decision to invade Iraq. This was broadcast on a major network and it too has been brushed aside.
I wonder what our American troops who are wounded and dying would think of either of these if they were allowed to view them?
I remember that comment.
What I want to know is. Do you think Bush was lying when he said "We need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator leading an oppresssive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistantly prone to miscalculation, and he is miscalculating Americas response to his continued deciet and grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Secutity Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons program and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destructiion is real, but is not knew. It has been with us since the end of the Persion Gulf War."?
I agree with you that they should have removed him the first time. At the time of that decision I felt we were making a mistake. I agree that many lives could have been saved. Probably well into the hindreds of thousands. Just the number of children that died each month due to the lack of the polio vaccine under that madman was in the thousands.
We also had the backing of the U.N then, but I can't remember if they supported removing Saddam. Not that that matters I was just wondering.
I want to know your thoughts about the Bushes comment above. Was he lying?
The world knows he was not lying about the brutality of Sadaam and his regime; that was a gimme. BUT this was not the reason he gave as THE reasons for invading Iraq, which were; 1) Weapons of Mass Destruction; and 2) Links to Al Qaeda. Neither one was correct.
Not using the "we had the chance" excuse, solely moving forward from 2000 on, there are valid and ethical ways to "persuade" a dictator from power. Think of the massacre in Bosnia/Serbia. They were able to try on the grounds of crimes against humanity successfully. I will try to find a link to the Blair e-mail, but when I saw that my faith in this administration sank to the depths I have today.
Islam, like any ancient religious tradition is complex and nuanced, and not understood without study and attention.
My only quibble with your article is the common practice of Islam apologists to begin the discussion of Western understanding of Islam with the Crusades.
The "west", which is all the Mediterranean world, "learned" of Islam in a brutal war of conquest from the 6th to 7th centuries in which Christian communities in Egypt, Tunisia, modern Turkey, and the Iberian peninsula were conquered and subdued.
We are so accustomed to thinking of north africa as Moslem, that we forget the reasons that the West hated and feared Islam - the brutal subjugation of thriving Christian communities there.
The Crusades were largely ineffectual in their stated intention to reclaim Jerusalem, but they began the long reversal of Moslem conquests in Spain, the Balkans, and portions of eastern Europe.
I am unqualified to give insight in any of these profound subjects, but from a personal point of view, I think "homo sapiens" is a misnomer. We may have big brains and we may be clever, but we're not really very "wise."
Before I enrolled and completed the course in "Introduction and history of Islam," I too thought that Muslims were torturous heathens who brutalized the Christian Empire and slaughtered innocents. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Muslims were bound by the Qur'an to refrain from harming women, children, holy men and other non-combatants. Although I am sure that this was not a "walk in the park" for the citizens of the Roman Empire, in the end, most preferred the "new boss" to the "old boss." Muslims allowed Christians and Jews to practice their beliefs and sought to maintain religious temples and churches. The Crusaders were the destroyers of Jewish synagogues and Muslim mosques. Muslims did not require non-Muslims to serve in the army, instead they imposed a tax on those who did not follow Islam, but this was done more to fulfill the requirement of alms in Islam through the entire community. When the Crusaders came through, they slaughtered everyone in sight, Jews, Christians living in the area and Muslims. They destroyed much of the infrastructure in their wake. One of the main reasons for the failure of the Crusades in maintaining control over the lands was due to resistence from their "planted" keepers of the peace; they intermarried between the locals and did not wish to lose the peace and sanctity of their realm.
Christianity has reaped more damage and killed more people than any other religion to date. We slaughtered Native Americans throughout the two continents, and imposed our way of worship upon all the natives. We did not respect their beliefs and buried their culture. This does not mean that Christianity is bad, just severely damaged in the wake of zealot in the past. We are "one nation, under God," and nowhere does it say whose God we're under. Since we share the same God with Islam and Judaism, we are not far off from being brothers. This is the sad fact in the war waged by both Western and Islamic extremists; this is truly not what God wants.