If you are having trouble viewing this email, click here.
July 19, 2006
by Dinesh D'Souza
Dear Concerned Citizen,
 

What stands out about the Islamic militant’s critique of America is its refreshing clarity. Painful though it is to admit, they aren’t entirely wrong. They charge that America is a society obsessed with material gain, and who will deny this? They condemn the West as an atheistic civilization, and while they may be wrong about the extent of religious belief and practice, they are right that in the West religion has little sway over the public arena, and the West seems to have generated more unbelief than any other civilization in world history. They are disgusted by our culture, and we have to acknowledge that there is a good deal in American culture that is disgusting to normal sensibilities. The Islamic militants fear that the idea of America is taking over their young people, breaking down allegiances to parents and religion and traditional community; this concern on their part is also justified.

The most important and influential of the Islamic critics of the West is the philosopher Sayyid Qutb. Born in Egypt in 1906, Qutb became disenchanted with Arab nationalism as a weapon against Western imperialism. He became a leader and theoretician of the Muslim Brotherhood, a terrorist organization that is also one of the oldest institutions of radical Islam. Qutb insists the institutions of the West are antithetical to Islam. The West is a society based on freedom whereas Islam is a society based on virtue. Moreover, in Qutb's view, Western institutions are fundamentally atheistic: they are based on a clear rejection of divine authority. When democrats say that sovereignty and political authority are ultimately derived from the people, this means that the people and not God are the rulers. So to Qutb democracy is a form of idol worship.

Here in short is the fundamentalist argument. The Koran promises that if Muslims are faithful to Allah, they will enjoy prosperity in this life and paradise in the next life. According to the Islamic militants, Muslims were doing this for centuries, and they were invincible. But now, the Islamic militants point out, Islam is not winning any more; in fact, it is losing. What could be the reason for this? From the Islamic militant point of view, the answer is obvious: Muslims are not following the true teaching of Allah! The Islamic militants allege that Muslims have fallen away from the true faith and are mindlessly pursuing the ways of the infidel. The Islamic militants also charge that Islamic countries are now ruled by self-serving despots who serve as puppets for America and the West. The solution, the Islamic militants say, is to purge American troops and Western influence from the Middle East; to overthrow corrupt, pro-Western regimes like the ones in Pakistan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia; and to return to the pure, original teachings of the Koran. Only then, the Islamic militants insist, can Islam recover its lost glory.

One can see, from this portrait, that the Islamic militants are a humiliated people who are seeking to recover ancestral greatness. They are not “losers”: they are driven by a belief in their moral superiority, combined with political, economic, and military inferiority. Their argument has a powerful appeal to proud Muslims who find it hard to come to terms with their contemporary irrelevance. And so the desert wind of fundamentalism has spread throughout the Middle East. It has replaced Arab nationalism as the most powerful political force in the region.

The Islamic world faces a formidable threat from the United States. America stands for an idea that is fully capable of transforming the Islamic world by winning the hearts of Muslims. The subversive American idea is one of shaping your own life, of making your own destiny, of following a path illumined not by external authorities but by your inner self. This American idea endangers the sanctity of the Muslim home, as well as the authority of Islamic society. It empowers women and children to assert their prerogatives against the male head of the household. It also undermines political and religious hierarchies. Of all American ideas, the “inner voice” is the most dangerous because it rivals the voice of Allah as a source of moral allegiance. So Islam is indeed, as bin Laden warned, facing the greatest threat to its survival since the days of Muhammad.

The success of the Islamic militants in the Muslim world should not blind us from recognizing that their counterattack against America and the West is fundamentally defensive. The Islamic militants know that their civilization does not have the appeal to expand outside its precinct. It’s not as if the Muslims were plotting to take, say Australia. It is the West that is making incursions into Islamic territory, winning converts and threatening to subvert ancient loyalties and transform a very old way of life.

So the Islamic militants are lashing out against this new, largely secular, Western “crusade.” Terrorism, their weapon of counterinsurgency, is the weapon of the weak. Terrorism is the international equivalent of the domestic weapon of discontent: the riot. Political scientist Edward Banfield once observed that a riot is a failed revolution. People who know how to take over the government don’t throw stones at a bus. Similarly terrorism of the bin Laden variety is a desperate strike against a civilization that the Islamic militants know they have no power to conquer.

Today, even though colonialism has ended, the Islamic world is in a miserable state. Basically all that it has to offer is oil, and as technology opens up alternative sources of energy, even that will not amount to much. Without its oil revenues, the Islamic world will find itself in the position of sub-Saharan Africa. When is the last time you opened the newspaper to read about a great Islamic discovery or invention? While China and India, two other empires that were eclipsed by the West, have embraced Western technology and even assumed a leadership role in some areas, Islam’s contribution to modern science and technology is negligible.

In recent decades, a great debate has broken out in the Muslim world to account for the Islamic decline and to formulate a response to it. One response—let us call it the reformist or classical liberal response—is to acknowledge that the Islamic world has been left behind by modernity. The reformers’ solution is to embrace science, democracy, and capitalism. This would mean adaptation-at least selective adaptation-to the ways of the West. The liberal reformers have an honorable intellectual tradition, associated with such names as Muhammad Abduh, Jamal al-Afghani, Muhammad Iqbal, and Taha Husayn. This group also enjoys a fairly strong base of support in the Muslim middle class. In the past two decades however, the reformers have been losing the argument in the Islamic world to their rival group the Islamic militants.

The bin Ladens of the world are waging a two-front war: against Western influence in the Middle East and against pro-Western governments and liberal influences within the Islamic world. It is not just “the West” against “Islam.” It is also a clash of civilizations within the Muslim world. One side or the other will prevail.

So what should American policy be toward the region?

We should not be unrealistic and insist that Islamic countries adopt the equivalent of America’s strict non-establishment clause in our constitution which prohibits any government involvement in religion. But it is indispensable that Islamic leaders and militants relinquish the use of force for the purpose of spreading Islam. They, too, should appeal to consent.

If this seems like a ridiculous thing to ask of Muslims, let us remember that millions of Muslims are already living this way. These are, of course, the Muslim immigrants to Europe and the US. They are showing the way for Islam to change in the same way that Christianity changed in order to survive and flourish in the modern world.

rate_this_article
content share

Responses to: The Language of God

Maybe if the ACLU had been looking in through the chapel doors, they would not have minded so long as he did not impose his beliefs, as well as his science, on people. He appears not to have. I'm glad his love and adoration of God lead him to explore God's creation. It is not necessary to make people believe in God in order to make them love his creation. And if the media were watching and howled at his intellectual backwardness? That's only a possibility if the liberal media were watching.If the conservative media were watching, they would have said - finally someone who will argue for the presence of God based on science. Finally someone who will speak for creationism because they are a Christian as well as a scientist. They would have been equally wrong in pigeon holing Dr. Collins based on his beliefs. - Fr. Steve Holton St. Paul's On-the-Hill Episcopal Church

I also am a Christian and an evangelical (one of what must be hundreds of varieties of Baptist), with both a PhD (Medical Biophysics) and an MD. I salute Dr. Collins as a fellow believer and a fellow scientist. For the past 35 years I have worked full-time as an independent, university-based research scientist in the area of experimental cancer therapy. At the same time I was very active as a Christian. At the time of my semi-retirement in 2000, I was Professor of both Oncology and Pathology at Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario; Professor of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering at The Royal Military College of Canada (the Canadian equivalent of West Point}; and a Senior Scientist of Cancer Care Ontario at the Kingston Regional Cancer Centre. I never hesitated to let either my colleagues or my patients know that I was a Christian, and this led to some very interesting conversations, some of which have continued for more than 25 years. However, in my experience, the greatest opposition came from fellow Christians, often members of the clergy, who had difficulty understanding the thought patterns of a scientist. As a scientist, I require evidence (data, facts) rather than the authority of some writer. My definition of faith is "belief and trust based upon good reasons and clear thinking". I know quite a few people whose faith is blind but who are true followers of Jesus. However, I myself could never function that way. To me, blind faith is either gullibility or superstition, even if the object of that faith is true. Allow me to describe an amusing example. A student Christian group at UCSD asked me to speak at a special meeting to which they had invited mostly graduate students and faculty in chemistry and physics. I spoke for about 40 minutes on "A scientific approach to the knowledge of God", using the scientific method throughout and making a point-by-point comparison with an analogous question involving chemistry. Then I asked for questions. To my surprise (and amusement!), the students did not ask me questions but immediately began arguing among themselves, with most of the non-Christians supporting my approach (advocating the use of the scientifc method to come to know God) , and with many of the Christians opposing it. The Christian life is an adventure, and often is fun if you don't take yourself too seriously! - J.C. (Jim) Kennedy, MD, PhD Professor Emeritus, Department of Oncology Queen's University Kingston, Ontario Canada

As a result of the previous issue I have already procured a copy of Genesis and the Big Bang through our local library interlibrary loan system and am well into it, and enjoying what I can understand of it. (Also just read the Time article about Mr. Collins.) Our God is an Awesome God, - Grant Alford

Send your letter to the editor to feedback@tothesource.org.

Click for a Printer Friendly Version
 
Real-World Successes of Adult Stem Cell Treatments
H.R. 810 - Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act
A look at Lebanon’s Hezbollah guerrillas
Iran hostage crisis
US Senate approves stem cell bill
New Iran Missiles Can Hit Europe
The Mideast: A Century of Conflict
 
We live complex lives. We strive to sort out priorities that sometimes conflict or seem incompatible. A moral framework is needed to help us understand the reality around us. Our Judeo-Christian heritage provides a framework to help us comprehend the choices we make and the conflicts that arise over them. It is not only the main source of our spiritual values, but also many of the secular values we depend on.

tothesource is a forum for integrating thinking and action within a moral framework that takes into account our contemporary situation. We will report the insights of cultural experts to the specific issues we face believing these sources will embolden people to greater faith and action.
We invite you to subscribe to our free email service
that features informed opinion on current cultural issues.
  Dinesh D'Souza
Dinesh D'Souza, the Rishwain Research Scholar at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, served as senior domestic policy analyst in the White House in 1987-1988. He is the best-selling author of Illiberal Education, The End of Racism, Ronald Reagan, The Virtue of Prosperity, and What's So Great About America. He is the designated expert on current American culture for tothesource.
tothesource, P.O. Box 1292, Thousand Oaks, CA 91358
Phone: (805) 241-3138 | Fax: (805) 241-3158 | info@tothesource.org

This email was sent to [[EMAIL_ADDRESS]]. If you feel you have received this in error or you do not wish to receive future articles from us, please reply with the word REMOVE in the subject line.