
For many Western liberals - and even some conservatives - the war on
terror is a clash of opposed fundamentalisms: Christianity vs. Islamic
fundamentalism. And the solution? Promote secularism both here in
America and throughout the Muslim world. This means urging our Muslim
allies in Turkey, Indonesia, Pakistan, Egypt and elsewhere to get rid
of Muslim laws and have secular laws. It means closing down the Muslim
schools and replacing them with secular schools. It means encouraging
secular programs on radio and TV.
Not only is this diagnosis of the problem wrong, but the solutions
proposed are actually fueling Muslim rage and making future terrorist
attacks against us more likely. The reason is that, from the point of
view of Islamic radicals, America is not hated because it is Christian.
Rather, America is hated because it is secular, what Osama bin Laden
has called "the leading power of the unbelievers." So by promoting
secularism, we are corroborating the charge of radical Muslims that we
are the enemies of their religion, and this also alienates traditional
Muslims and pushes them into the radical camp.
It is time to revisit some common assumptions. Many Americans consider
Islamic fundamentalists and Christian fundamentalists as essentially
equivalent, "kindred spirits," in the words of the late novelist
William Styron. Al Gore finds in President Bush "the American version
of the same fundamentalist impulse that we see in Saudi Arabia." In her
book The Mighty and the Almighty, Madeleine Albright frets that
"hard-liners can find in the Koran and the Bible justifications for
endless conflict."
In this view, Christian and Muslim religious fanatics are once again
fighting each other, as they have done in the past. As Jim Wallis puts
it in his book God's Politics, there is a close parallel between
Islam's holy war against the West and George Bush's holy war against
Islamic terrorism. From this perspective, the best solution is for
America to stand up for the principles of secularism and oppose both
Muslim fundamentalism and Christian fundamentalism.
This view of the war is founded, however, on a superficial
understanding of bin Laden's rhetoric declaring a religious war of
civilizations. Bin Laden does speak of the world as being divided into
a "region of faith" and a "region of infidelity." And at times he
defines the clash as one between Muslims and the "crusaders."
But the context of bin Laden's arguments clearly shows that he is not
speaking of a religious war between Islam and Christianity. In the same
videotaped remarks in which he posits these conflicts, he praises
Christianity. In one statement, he observes that Islam respects the
prophets of Judaism, Christianity and Islam "without distinguishing
among them."
In the classical Muslim understanding, there is a fundamental
distinction between Jews and Christians, on the one hand, and
polytheists and atheists on the other. According to Islam, Judaism and
Christianity are incomplete but genuine revelations. As monotheists,
Jews and Christians have historically been entitled to Muslim respect
and even protection. In every Islamic empire, from the Umayyad to the
Abbasid to the Ottoman, Jews and Christians were permitted to practice
their religion, and in no Muslim regime has it ever been considered
legitimate to systematically kill them.
By contrast, polytheists and atheists have always been anathema to
Islam. The Koran says, "Fight the pagans all together as they fight you
all together," and "Slay the idolaters wherever you find them." These
passages, which bin Laden frequently quotes, do not refer to
Christians, because Christians are not considered pagans or idolaters.
Rather, they refer to those, like the Bedouins of ancient Arabia, who
worship many gods or no god. Muslims are commanded to fight these
unbelievers, especially when they threaten the House of Islam.
Muslim radicals could repudiate the entire Islamic tradition and argue
that Christians and Jews are no different from atheists and deserve the
same treatment. But this claim would undoubtedly alienate traditional
Muslims. Sheikh Sayyed Muhammad Tantawi, head of Al-Azhar University in
Cairo, recently argued the traditional view that "Islam has never been
and will never be at war with Christianity."
For bin Laden to declare war against Christianity would divide even the
radical Muslim camp. The influential radical Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi
has said that Muslims "believe in the Jewish and Christian Scriptures.
Our Islamic faith is not complete without them."
Islamic radicals such as bin Laden make their case against America and
the West not on the grounds that these cultures are Christian, but on
the grounds that they have abandoned Christianity. In his May 2006
letter to President Bush, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad faulted
America not for being Christian, but for not being Christian enough.
Many years earlier, the radical theoretician Sayyid Qutb made the same
point: The main reason for the West's moral decay is that in the modern
era, "religious convictions are no more than a matter of antiquarian
interest."
Other Muslim radicals today echo these arguments. The influential
Pakistani scholar Khurshid Ahmad, leader of the Islamic Assembly of
Students, or Islami Jamiat-e-Talaba, argues: "Had Western culture been
based on Christianity, on morality, on faith, the language and modus
operandi of the contact and conflict would have been different. But
that is not the case. The choice is between the divine principle and a
secular materialistic culture."
Even though Christianity has eroded, Muslim radicals contend that the
ancient crusading spirit now infuses the pagan culture of the West.
When bin Laden calls America a crusader state, he means that America is
on a vicious international campaign to impose its atheist system of
government and its pagan values on Muslims. How? By supporting secular
dictators in Pakistan, Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. And by exporting
a secular culture that undermines the traditional values of Islam.
In this way, bin Laden argues that America is hell-bent on destroying
the Muslim religion. The rallying cry of Islamic radicalism is that
"Islam is under attack." In a 1998 declaration, bin Laden called on
Muslims to "launch attacks against the armies of the American devils"
and to kill Americans, whom he identified as the "helpers of Satan." In
a 2003 sermon, he praised the Sept. 11 hijackers and compared the Twin
Towers of the World Trade Center to the idols in the Kaaba that the
Prophet Muhammad destroyed in the year 630 upon his victorious return
to Mecca.
Thus, the popular notion that the war against terrorism is a battle of
two opposed forms of religious fundamentalism is false. This is not why
the Islamic radicals are fighting against America. From the perspective
of bin Laden and his allies, the war is between the Muslim-led forces
of monotheism and morality against the America-led forces of atheism
and immorality. Secularism, not Christianity is responsible for
producing a blowback of Muslim rage.
Dinesh D'Souza.