I have done my best to distinguish between the Taleban’s perversion of Islam and the mainstream Muslim faith. With each passing day I am beginning to question the validity of my own views on the subject. While many Arab nations have mouthed appropriate phrases condemning the atrocity in New York, I am starting to have trouble believing them.
I continue to hear about how negative it would be for any other Muslim nation to engage in battle against the Taleban in Afghanistan. A Muslim nation bringing arms against another Muslim country is supposed to be bad for Islamic morale. We will for the nonce try to ignore the everpresent violence of Muslims against other Muslims that dwarf both ours and Israel’s actions. However superficially sensible it might seem to avoid such intercine battles there is the question of just how desirable it is to be showing any solidarity whatsoever with the Taleban. In fact, demonstrations of any solidarity with the Taleban at all constitutes tacit approval for their complicity in the World Trade Center atrocity.
This has quickly become unacceptable to me. If you are to condemn the hideous acts of the Taleban, then you must actively engage in their ruination. They have besmirched the name of Allah and given Islam a black eye that will last for decades, if not longer. What better way to disassociate yourselves from such blackguards than to declare war on them? After all, their perversion of Islam disqualifies them as Muslims, does it not? So where is there any need for any sense of solidarity with them? That is, unless you really happen to feel as though there was some validity to the atrocious acts of September 11. If that is the case, then why not come right out and say so?
The fence sitting of the Arab countries is beginning to disgust me. To feel any sort of sympathy or solidarity with the Taleban is to outrightly condone their acts and thereby ally yourselves with them. It would seem far better to quickly and vigorously distinguish yourself from the twisted and utterly incorrect interpretation of the Koran that the Taleban have embraced. To not do so rapidly becomes approval for what their crimes and puts the lie to any sincerity contained in Arab expressions of sympathy. I see it as incumbent for the United States to quickly and emphatically begin a shift away from oil dependency and eliminate the need to import Middle Eastern oil (but that is grist for another thread). The equivocal noises issuing forth from the Arab nations is neither convincing nor is it in concordance with their own religious teachings. This seems to be the height of hypocrisy and needs to be examined closely as we begin a fundamental realignment of our foreign policy in the region.
There is a distinct whiff of unspoken approval by the Saudis in their less than wholehearted participation in the current engagement against Afghanistan. I feel that this is due to the rather close association between the Saudi Wahabbis and the Taleban. Such a cozy relationship bears detailed scrutiny by our state department in its formulation of international relations subsequent to all of this. The damningly faint praise we are receiving from the Arab nations for committing our troops to such a thankless task as this clean up of the Taleban should serve as a warning bell when we reassess our level of cooperation with these Middle Eastern countries.
Again, I see any willingness to allocate putatively Moslem attributes to the Taleban as tacit approval for their complicity with Osama bin Laden and his acts. The Arab nations should be held accountable for this willing solidarity with such murderers. To not have quickly and vocally distanced themselves from this blight upon humanity casts them in a similar light and should require vivd demonstrations to disprove this before they might reassume any air of credibility. Their horror at the atrocity in New York rings hollow while they continue to refuse any participation in the downfall of the Taleban.
It may just be pragmatic for Arab nations to let the US take care of things, then claim they weren’t responsible for it.
This has been bothering me too, actually. Why should we spend so much time and effort placating Muslim countries when they are spending no effort to assist us? You’d think that Pakistan, being in the delicate situation that it is, would be the least help, but they are assisting the US more than any other Muslin nation. Egypt and Jordan have promised intelligence, but that seems like a cop-out.
While it might be comforting for the vast majority of Westerners to think of dar al-Islam (the House of Islam) to be essentially one denomination of Relgion, that is nowhere even close to correct.
Islam has a number of sects, the foremost of which are the Sunni and the Sh’ia (or Shi’ites). There is also the Wahabi sect to which the ruling family of Saudi Arabia belongs, and also the Druse, Sufi, and numerous others.
These sects have quite a few differences between them and some sects consider some other sects to be not Muslim.
In short, “mainstream Islam” is not monolithic nor does it really have solidarity.
That is true Monty, but they seem to speak with one voice an awful lot, as is evidenced by the recent meeting of the “Organization of the Islamic Conference”.
And these Muslims certainly don’t seem to see a difference.
Well, I think that most people would like to stay out of wars that they arn’t directly involved with, especially when the outcome of that war is likely to increase the power of a fairly hostile force (us) in the vicinity.
They are probably hoping for a quick and fairly painless war. a la Gulf War, that won’t drag their countries and their resourses in to it.
Damnit! My first large, thoughtful post got deleted. Now you all just have to settle for the short crappy one.
Monty: I agree unhesitatingly with your main point . But I do feel the need to make a couple of minor corrections/additions for the record.
Wahhabism is a form ( or subsect ) of Sunnism, rather than a distinct sect from it.
Sufism is a philosophical approach to Islam, rather than a doctrinally separate sect. One can be either Sunni or Shi’a and still be a Sufi ( though some fundamentalist sects do indeed reject Sufism as an unIslamic innovation ). Also Sufism is not a unified body of thought, but rather a catch-all term encompassing many diverse Orders.
The Druse, though they originally sprang from the Isma’ili subsect of Shi’a Islam, no longer accept Muhammed as the final prophet of God and no longer believe that the Koran is the final word of God. So they are no longer Muslim by any standard ( including their own ), but rather members of a distinct religion with Islamic roots and an Islamic flavor.
Zenster: Just so you don’t feel left out, and to cement my reputation for being tiresomely pedantic, I have a possible nitpick for you as well . If you really are just referring to Arab-speaking countries when you say “Arab world”, that’s fine ( and my apologies for dogging you - But this point is worth making for other readers as well ). But if you are referring to Muslim countries generally, do remember that they are not synonyms. That’s just sloppy usage that I’ve been seeing a little too often. Neither Afghanistan, nor any of its immediate neighbors, are Arab-speaking ( except for very small minorities ).
With that out of the way, I’ll say that I generally agree with your sentiments. I wish we would see more open condemnation, too. But frankly I don’t expect it. Given the current political reality on the ground in most of the Muslim world, the pressure to play this as low-key as possible is intense.
It’s one thing for the Taliban to say that the Muslims in the Northern Alliance are “hypocrites” ( i.e. “bad Muslims” ) and are therefore permissable to fight and vice versa. That little rationale has been in heavy and continuous use since the mid-7th century, when the third Caliph, Uthman, was murdered by a dissident faction. But making that rationale in support of, not only an outside power, but what is seen by many, at least in the Middle-East, as the great boogeyman of international politics, is an entirely different proposition.
So, from the standpoint of objective morality, I more or less agree with you ( I’m perhaps just a little more wishy-washy, being a bit of a moral relativist ). But in terms of subjective pragmatism, I am frankly delighted that we have gotten as much support as we have ( especially from Pakistan - never mind that their tail was in a crack and they had little choice ). I don’t see anything wrong with pushing for more - carefully and quietly. But we have to remember just how fragile many of these ( often oppressive and generally undemocratic ) regimes are. And consequently just how conservative and cautious they have to be. Even beyond the Muslim question, even sven has a good point - no government likes getting dragged into struggles, no matter how righteous, that might make trouble for them. Push too hard and we have more messes to deal with that will just dilute our resources in the region and make the task at hand that much tougher. I’m afraid that, IMHO, we just can’t afford moral absolutism on this issue at this time.
But again, that doesn’t mean I disagree in spirit .
Well, far be it for me to know what is going on amongst the leaders of the Arab/Muslim nations, but I think that their hesitance to really take a stand is indicative of the complexity of their countries’ internal governing policies, dealing with influential businessmen (e.g. OPEC) the interaction amongst the different sects of Islam within their countries and across borders, AND the complexity of negotiating government and religion with other Arab/Muslim countries. To top all this off they have to deal with countries who have systems of governance that aren’t mediated by religion. So there’s a clash because the lines between government and religious practice are blurred.
For example, I saw on the BBC news a few days ago that there was rioting and looting in Palestine because Arafat had the Palestinian police stop a protest folks started against the American bombing campaign in Afghanistan. What got the Palestinian protestors upset was the fact that the police in stopping the protest I believe shot and maybe killed or injured a few protestors. Of course there was more going on there, but that’s what the BBC was able to report since Arafat ordered the media out of the city. I have a friend who worked in Saudi Arabia, and he said that while the Saudi government has exiled ObL, his family and many Saudis still do support him under the table. These countries, while they may actually deplore the terrorist attacks, still have to deal with the different factions and perspectives within their borders and the very real threat that a lot of terrorists probably do live in these Arab/Muslim countries, and they would probably rise up and perpetrate terrorist attacks against the governments themselves for openly supporting the US in attacking Afghanistan. Or it could be as Zenster says that they tacitly do approve of the 9/11 atrocities. There probably is some degree of duplicity in these Arab/Muslim countries as they probably do participate in the creation and perpetuation of terrorists, for the fastest way to produce a terrorist is to brainwash one in a religious school where only one interpretation of Islam–perhaps Wahhabism–is taught and there is no way really for students to question/critique the version of Islam that they are taught because one is not supposed to question a religion that requires total submission to Allah. Perhaps I’m giving them too much credit, but maybe they will help us in other less direct means. Still, the issue is so complex that it may really be difficult for these governments to openly take a stand one way or another and the best policy is to fence sit. The only thing that I can definitively state is that there’s a bigger game here than meets the eye, and I sure as hell don’t know what it is.
Positively compelling analysis. In fact, you’ve made a case so compelling that I’ve changed my mind. Previously, I thought they were doing right by their own interest. Now, I believe they are being parochial and narrow-minded, and are as much an emabarrasment to their religion as Robertson is to his. Clearly, they care nothing for their religion, but only for politics. (Of course, in my view, religion = politics.)
There are already a couple of excellent replies to the largely uninformed OP, but I would like to add a point-by-point refutation for those who persist in broadcasting such heavily biased and inchoate views.
After reading your post I seriously doubt you have made any such effort.
Generally speaking a Muslim nation taking up arms against another Muslim nation is bad not only for morale but for basic existence as well. Islam is a brotherhood that trascends (supposedly) all races and nations. Muslims are commanded to defend their brothers in Islam, especially if the brothers are attacked from the outside.
Evidence please.
No. The Taleban’s degree of complicity in the WTC attacks is unknown at present (if they were accomplices at all); they are being attacked for failing to turn over a known terrorist and because it suits the attackers, not because there is any concrete evidence (I doubt they would be so stupid as to take a direct part in such atrocities, but you never know). Secondly, the same way your cultural background distorts your point of view and makes you post statements like the OP, the populations of countries across the Islamic world have their own distorted points of view and are expressing them just like you. Their point of view does not necessarily perceive the US as the good guys, for many, MANY reasons. Chief among those reasons are long-standing US support of Israel to the detriment of several Arab nations, and the US troops stationed in Saudi Arabia (which is holy land of course).
Almost all nations have condemned the terrorist attacks, however blaming the Taleban for such terrorism is more difficult, because it is not yet known if they simply hosted terrorists or participated in acts of terror. The charge against the Taleban is that they are harbouring terrorists–a charge that may be applied to other countries in the coalition against terror. And WHY exactly, beyond political science for 3rd graders, are all countries forced to “actively engage in their ruination”???
Agree whole-heartedly. The Taleban were a problem when they rose to power in the mid-90s and the world ought to have acted as soon as these thugs took over all of Afghanistan by force and imposed a mockery of Islam on the country. Of course, it must be remembered that Islamic Fundamentalism in that region was propped up and encouraged by the West during the Cold War as a wave-breaker against Communism.
The question to ask here is, what better way to piss off the general population in your country than by siding with the Americans and declaring war on fellow Muslims? Do you think that the general population across most of these countries realizes that the Taleban are (generally speaking) nuts? We are talking about masses of average people, and average people in ANY country tend to be ignorant. That’s the strongest argument against democracy, by the way.
Now, the governments of, e.g., Saudi Arabia or Egypt want to see the Taleban removed. Egypt in particular has no love for fundamentalists. Even Pakistan has said they want the Taleban replaced! The problem is that although the governments of these countries may have the necessary knowledge of the situation, the teeming millions of average people in the region retain their deep distrust of the US, and feel an obligation to help defend their Muslim brothers. It’s a difficult situation for everyone, but most especially for the governments of such countries, who have to struggle with their own populations while assisting the US.
Unfortunately this is the view of the West and /or of the educated (note that the two terms are not synonymous). The average person in, say, Iran doesn’t really understand what the Taleban are doing (not to mention world affairs of the last decades, but they do know that the US brought a lot of misery to their country). They just hear that fighters of Allah, some of whom managed to whip the invading Soviets out of the country, have regained control of their soil and set up a government based on Islamic tradition. The people may disagree with what the Taleban do, but between Muslim brothers and “meddling, Jew-loving, Arab-suppressing, bully Americans”, can you understand how their sympathies might lean towards Muslim brothers?
The most important factor in any war is always propaganda. The Taleban do not impress me, but I have to admit they are playing their cards right so far, their propaganda is working. They are manipulating the entire world by tainting the perceptions of Muslims and non-Muslims. Actually I think this is not so much the Taleban’s communication skill as part of Bin Laden’s plans.
I doubt more than a fraction of the population of such countries thinks the WTC atrocities were appropriate; even some of the 15% of Pakistanis in Pakistan who support the Taleban against the US probably agree that the WTC was an atrocity. The main objection EVERYONE has concerns the killing of innocents. Muslims will be especially concerned about the killing of Muslim innocents, given the concept of transnational brotherhood I mentioned earlier and the fact that according to Islam innocents should never be targeted in any war.
And they have a good point. Among others, four Afghani UN workers were killed by US strikes gone wrong, no doubt the civilian death toll has reached three figures by now. It’s a shame.
Probably because you view it in a simplistic, even reductionist manner.
Really? Let’s see some logic behind that rather strong assertion. And by “their acts”, what ARE you talking about? The WTC attacks, or their attitudes toward women?? Have you also considered that the Taleban consists of officials ranging from the extreme to the rather more moderate?
It would make more sense, but history tells us that interests and popular pressure exert more pressure than common sense.
Right, as soon as Americans learn to survive without huge cars. And we have already discussed why the governments of these countries that are disgusting you so are not able simply to crush popular outcry against the US attacks.
What do you know about their religious teachings? And, for the last time, almost every nation on the planet, Arab or not, condemns the WTC attacks because they were fundamentally wrong AND against what every religion I can think of teaches. Arab leaders’ statements may seem “equivocal” to you because of the titghtrope the leaders have to walk, but I suggest you study the game more closely.
In order to screw things up worse than they already are? When it comes to foreign policy the US is not exactly the world leader, particularly this administration. There are so many factors to consider here, I hope no one decides on a sudden radical shift in foreign policy to satisfy impulses such as exhibited in the OP.
What obligation are the Saudis under? They have already done quite a lot considering that they are allowing an attack by a predominantly Christian power against a deeply Islamic neighbour in a climate that screams out “jihad” and “crusade” (crusade and Jihad are not the truth of course, just a matter of twisted perceptions). The US attacks on Afghanistan would be impossible without the approval of the nations in that region. The fact that the strikes are going ahead with the approval of most countries in the region despite everything I have explained shows excellent support for the US.
EVERYTHING in this situation requires close scrutiny, not just the agents you wish to demonize.
That’s right Zenster, get it all off your chest. As soon as you feel better please activate your brain. Perhaps the following obtuse yet humorous illustration will put things into perspective:
The Tale of Mr. Fall Well, Psycho Terrorist
Imagine the Islamic world discovered that a certain terrorist is responsible for (let’s say) an act that killed thousands of people and caused hundreds of billions of dollars in damage somewhere in the Middle East. This terrorist is living in the USA. He is a fundamentalist Christian and is very popular with many Americans. We’ll call this person Mr. Fall Well.
Suddenly the entire Islamic world and all their allies (including non-Islamic countries) are knocking on the US’s door and saying “we believe Mr. Fall Well is responsible for the atrocity mentioned earlier. Please hand him over unconditionally or face the wrath of the Islamic world.”
The US, somewhat perturbed, asks for evidence against Fall Well. The Arab world displays incomplete evidence, but also says Fall Well is a well-known terrorist whose crimes have been proved in the past. Fall Well also happens to be a filthy rich guy who donates a chunk of his large television show revenues to the US Defence Budget. He has friends in all the right places in the US government. Therefore the US tell the Islamic world: “forget it. Mr. Fall Well is a guest in our country. Show us solid evidence and we may reconsider.”
From there you know the song and dance. Eventually the combined might of the Islamic world, supported by the rest of the world and the US’s neighbours, launches strikes against every major American target (the US has poor defences for the sake of discussion). Because Fall Well is a well-known international menace, most of the world sides with the Muslims, condemning Fall Well and the USA for harbouring him.
In this ridiculous situation would you expect Canada to cheer loudly and enthusiastically as the Islamic world went about violent removal of the US government? Do you think Mexico would yell exuberantly, “Please, use our air bases to launch your strikes!” Come on, look at it in perspective!
Well, it’s painfully obvious from your choice of language and categorical assertions that you are pursuing your own agenda in this matter, and are more interested in split infinitives than the truth. Nice demagoguery, but no cigar.
My thoughts: Part of the issue, a recent issue of the Economist claims, is that the extent of the human tragedy in New York and the Pentagon is just not accepted by people in far away places. They simply don’t believe 6000 people were killed. I have even read in the South China Morning Post this morning that some people in Indonesia think the WTC bombing was a Jewish conspiracy. They’re just not informed, and are misguided by local rumours.
So the man in the street sees all of the Christian countries lining up to kick the crap out of an Islamic country, and he and his Muslim friends get upset about it because they don’t really see what the big deal is about blowing up some buildings they’ve never heard of in America (especially when the biggest building they might have seen is 20 floors high and filled with a couple of hundred people).
At a governmental level, they know this, and want to keep a lid on their fundamentalist rowdies, at a time when Afghanistan is crying out for help from its fellow Muslims. Worse, at a paradigmal level, they also actually see it as some Christian countries infringing on the sovereignty of a fellow Islamic emirate, and knocking the shit out of it in revenge. So they shut up, because they don’t want to annoy the US by saying that, and just let the US do what it has to do, hoping that it will all finish soon.
I’m not trying to make excuses for not condemning an act of terrorism, as Iraq failed to do. But showing wholesale support for a US military operation against a fellow Muslim emirate which will in all likelihood martyr bin Laden and create a lot more fundamentalist mujahedeen (carrying on the job started by the Soviets) is not a politically sensible move for these guys right now.
Clearly it is time for the US to declare itself a Muslim nation. If those who distort Islam as much as the Taliban can be considered Muslim there is obviously no standard for what constitutes a Muslim nation so the US can continue to act as it always has yet have the wonderful solidarity of being Muslim brothers.
There are some fifty plus training sites for Bin Laudin’s group inside Afghanistan. The Taliban know quite well what these sites are for and by allowing them to exist are condoning attacks by groups based inside their nation upon other nations.
One of the reasons is that Arab governments such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt find it easier to allow their press to cook up outrageous fabrications of what the US is responsible for in the Middle-East or to blame Israel for every tragedy in the world, including the WTC attack, rather than face head on the problems that these incompetent governments are causing. The US is blamed for not helping the Palestinians by the same Arab governments that refuse to take any Palestian refugees in.
Only two cities in Saudia Arabia are considered holy and US forces are not stationed anywhere near them. The grievence that US forces are defiling holy land is just an excuse for anti-Americanism. Refer to the Muslim Guy for more info.
I also find your comparing the US, which has laws concerning extradition, to the Taliban which has a judicial system based on whims and bribes, quite insulting.
FWIW, I think you’re missing a crucial perspective in forming your views, Zenster.
It seems clear that the overwhelming majority of the Muslim world doesn’t agree with the Taliban’s interpretation of Islam. Equally, the overwhelming majority of Muslims are not motivated enough to actively support Bin Ladin’s agenda. However, the overriding issue here, for the Islamic world, is neither the Taliban’s interpretation or Bin Ladin’s tactics. It’s the US. That is vital to understand if you want to grasp why so many Islamic politicians are lukewarm to the US’s current agenda; They cannot do anymore –probably don’t want to do anymore - than popular support in their individual countries will allow.
I guess what I’m saying is two-fold:
Don’t underestimate the resentment, even hatred, felt by ‘average’ Muslims towards the US for the decades of perceived interference with their religion, their people and their countries.
Don’t confuse the rational with the emotional, in either your personal judgement or in how you judge the reaction of others.
Thus, the primary response we are seeing from Islamic nations takes much account of the emotional resentment of their people and those people don’t look at 9/11 as an isolated incident but rather as part of a 30-50 year (US Foreign Policy) continuum. In that largely emotional context, the Taliban and Bin Ladin have restored to very many Muslims a very real sense of self-esteem and have, in a terrible, perverse way, articulated mainstream opinion.
In this emotional climate, many Muslim people overlook the Taliban’s record and the consequences, in human terms, of Bin Ladin’s actions just as many in the West forget the consequences of what we have done in the past in that region and who choose instead to look at 9/11 as a one-off terrorist action.
Libertarian: Well, yes, they are hypocrites and there is actually no worse crime in Islam than falsely adopting the trappings of Islam. As I said, it is just that accusation that has been the motivation for any number of internecine conflicts in the Muslim world. I believe Osama bin Laden himself just invoked that very clause in condemning Muslims that might side with the U.S. - the implication is that to do so is “hypocritical”, in the sense of being un-Islamic.
And that’s the problem. As Abe pointed out in part, to a large portion of the population in that area, it is hard to sort out just who are in the wrong. The assertion that Mossad set-up the WTC attack to discredit the Muslim world may seem utterly absurd to you and I, but to the masses of heavily propagandized and otherwise poorly informed citizens of some of these Muslim countries, it seems distinctly plausible. Conspiracy theorizing of the most bizarre and scandalous sort have practically become an art form over there. And after all the Taliban and al-Qaeda do adopt the outward trappings of extreme piety. Never mind that they twist Islam to suit their own awful agenda. They talk a good line. And the U.S. has been so relentlessly demonized in the last quarter century, it’s very hard for some of these average folks to suddenly do a 180 degree turn and accept that America is on the side of righteousness.
That’s why counter-propaganda ( if you will ) in the form of good works is such a vitally important component of this mission ( and kudos to the administration for realizing that ). And that’s why the U.S. must step so gingerly around the socio-religious politics of the region. It is a very dangerous minefield. That some of the governments in the region were complicit ( passively or otherwise ) in the brainwashing of their populace is neither here nor there, at this point. Not if we’re being pragmatic. The fact is that at least tacit support of local governments, which so far we are getting, is an important component of the propaganda war. And the propaganda war is very important to the winning of hearts and minds and thereby reducing the spectre of future generations of terrorists.
This whole subject does raise an important question about Islam.
When fundamentalist Christian groups in this country begin attacking minorities, woman, homosexuals, etc., more moderate Christians are very quick to argue against such ideas.
Except for US Islamic clerics, I have not heard any Islamic leaders saying that killing thousands of innocent people is not the way into paradise.
Why not?
In fact, if there are more moderate, peace loving branches of Islam, it would be my vote that we make sure as much foreign aid as possible uses these groups as a conduit, so that the masses become attracted to their way of thinking, instead of sending their little boys off to join terrorist cells.
Well, Khatami (President of Iran, also a religious figure) said that the WTC incident was bad.
A group of Pakistani clerics travelled to Afghanistan to try to convince the Taliban to give up Bin Laden.
Abu Abdullah, a cleric in Gaza, told worshipers that, while America is responsible for causing the “severe frustration” that led to the attacks, the Koran still forbids killing innocents.
Ayatollah Mohammad Emami-Kashani, an Iranian cleric said, “This incident is worrisome for everyone. All Muslims condemn the attacks.” in a speech where he then attacked Israel.
There’s also the fact that I think some people outside of the US, while they find what happened to be sad and interesting, don’t really care much. This seems to be a universal reaction. How often have you read about some tragedy in a foreign country…a terrorist act, a war, an earthquake, in the newspaper while eating breakfast, and said “Oh, that’s terrible. Hey, do we have any more coffee?”
I think what some forget in thinking of the Muslim countries is that they are all autocratic countries and so the governments are less reflections of popular will than shapers of the will.
Every autocratic country needs an enemy to justify the level of repression they have on their own people. The one the Arab countries use is Israel and its backers the USA. The governments try to keep the people’s anger focused on Israel and the US so the people never ask why they are saddled with a corrupt and oppressive government.
Having convinced their people that Israel and the US is evil, how can they turn around and attack those who are fighting the US in the only way available to them? The arab countries are not really against terrorism they are against anything that threaten their regimes. So it is better for them for OBL to be in Afghanistan plotting against the US than for him to plotting the overthrow of their regimes.
Yes, well, IMO that’s par for the course of a religious states – knowledge leads to questioning, which leads to a breakdown of faith, which makes a big mess. Better to tell everyone to keep quiet, don’t question authority, and to go to services and do whatever the leaders tell you. But that’s IMO.
In a related vein, there’s an essay in this week’s issue of Time magazine from an Islamic journalist (sorry, no link available) that talks about how the anti-Western attitudes in the Middle East is the fault of both Western imperialism/meddling and the failure of Islamic countries to move beyond fundamentalism – that is, the obsessive assumption that anything modern is inherently wrong, because it’s from the West. I think it makes a good argument, and urge folks to take a look at it.
. But I do feel the need to make a couple of minor corrections/additions for the record.
. If you really are just referring to Arab-speaking countries when you say “Arab world”, that’s fine ( and my apologies for dogging you - But this point is worth making for other readers as well ). But if you are referring to Muslim countries generally, do remember that they are not synonyms. That’s just sloppy usage that I’ve been seeing a little too often. Neither Afghanistan, nor any of its immediate neighbors, are Arab-speaking ( except for very small minorities ).