Islamists and Anti-Americanism (It's a war to the death which they fully intend to win.)

MERIA [Middle East Review of International Affairs] ^ | December 2003 | Reuven Paz

[quidnunc]

The leading element of anti-Americanism in contemporary world politics is the radical Islamist one, which, since the 1990s, has viewed the United States as its strongest and principal enemy.  This perception, especially after the American occupation of Iraq, is often accompanied by a demonization of the United States in an apocalyptic sense within a concept of a war that heralds the end of the world.

Since the September 11, 2001 attacks and the onset of a global war against terrorism led by the United States, anti-Americanism has become an integral part of world politics.  The debate over war in Iraq and then the war itself, invoked even more anti-Americanism in the Arab and Muslim World, as well as in parts of Europe. In parts of the world, anti-Americanism is also linked to anti-Globalization.

Yet, the leading element of anti-Americanism in contemporary world politics is the radical Islamist one, which, since the 1990s, has viewed the United States as its strongest and principal enemy. This perception, especially after the American occupation of Iraq, is often accompanied by a demonization of the United States in an apocalyptic sense within a concept of a war that heralds the end of the world.

The roots of Islamist anti-Americanism were deep long before the rise of the Jihadist movement in the 1990s, or the Islamic revolution in Iran in 1979. They were developed by the anti-American atmosphere of secular Arab regimes, such as the Nasserist and Ba'thist ones, and encouraged by their alliance with the Soviet Union. Millions of Arabs grew up with and were indoctrinated by anti-American slogans, and the perception of the United States as an enemy that was plotting against them by supporting Israel.

Secular Arab anti-Americanism was mainly political, and not part of a cultural worldview. But, it heavily contributed to the development of Islamist anti-Americanism, by contributing one very important element — the sense of a global Western conspiracy against the Arabs and the Arab and Muslim world.

The sense of confronting a conspiracy is a crucial element in understanding contemporary Islamist anti-Americanism. It provides the Islamists with their main justification and motive for developing the image of the "American enemy." The fact that the Islamists became the leading proponents of anti-Americanism in our time supported the notion that a cultural clash of civilizations was occurring. In previous decades, Arabs and Muslims had vacillated between being pressured by their governments to espouse political hatred of the United States, while, at the same time, there was admiration for its culture, education, freedom, and wealth.  Millions of Arabs and Muslims had been dreaming about immigration to the United States and some of them managed to fulfill these dreams. The Islamists managed to turn this dual situation among certain circles — especially intellectuals and highly educated Muslims — into a war of cultures. They spread anti-American feelings, not to mention support and justification for terrorism against the United States.

Sayyid Qutb – the roots of Islamist anti-Americanism

The first Islamist to declare a cultural war against the United States and Western civilization was the Egyptian scholar Sayyid Qutb (1906-1966). Qutb was a senior official in the Egyptian Ministry of Education in the late 1940s, and a member of the then influential movement of the Muslim Brotherhood. In 1949 he was sent to the United States for two years to study methods of education. During the two years that he spent in the United States, he began to develop his radical ideas and doctrines, which, in the 1960s and 1970s, would become the philosophical basis of a wide spectrum of Jihadi groups.

Malise Ruthven, who spent time exploring the writings of Sayyid Qutb, wrote that he "was as significant in that world as Lenin was to Communism." Ruthven characterized his visit to the United States as "the defining moment or watershed from which 'the Islamist war against America' would flow."

Sayyid Qutb wrote many articles and letters from the United States. Many of them were collected in a book published in Saudi Arabia in 1985.(1) Many references to his views on the United States are found in his writings, including his monumental interpretation of the Koran, "In the Shadow of the Koran" (Fi Zalal al-Koran).

In his letters and writings, Sayyid Qutb laid the foundation for the perception that American society, and hence Western culture, was the new form of Jahiliyyah — the pre-Islamic period, which represents ignorance of God's rule and the rule of arbitrary law instead. In his famous book, Milestones (Ma'alim fi al-Tariq), Qutb draws the most important element of his conclusions from his interpretation of Western society in the American paradigm:

The leadership of mankind by Western man is now on the decline, not because Western culture has become poor materially or because its economic and military power has become weak. The period of the Western system has come to an end primarily because it is deprived of those life-giving values, which enabled it to be the leader of mankind.

It is necessary for the new leadership to preserve and develop the material fruits of the creative genius of Europe, and also to provide mankind with such high ideals and values as have so far remained undiscovered by mankind, and which will also acquaint humanity with a way of life which is harmonious with human nature, which is positive and constructive, and which is practicable.

Islam is the only System, which possesses these values and this way of life.

From these conclusions, he then defines the nature of the clash between Islam and the West/United States: 

The enemies of the Believers may wish to change this struggle into an economic or political or racial struggle, so that the Believers become confused concerning the true nature of the struggle and the flame of belief in their hearts becomes extinguished. The Believers must not be deceived, and must understand that this is a trick. The enemy, by changing the nature of the struggle, intends to deprive them of their weapon of true victory, the victory, which can take any form, be it the victory of the freedom of spirit….(2)

Qutb argued that the worst form of colonialism, which had outlasted the formal end of European colonialism, was "intellectual and spiritual colonialism." He advised the Islamic world to destroy the influence of the West within itself, to eradicate its residue "within our feelings." Anti-Americanism, according to Qutb's philosophical legacy for the generations that followed him, was "the greater Jihad" in Islam — the Jihad of the self or Jihad al-Nafs. This Jihad would therefore require the emergence of a new generation of Muslims who should fight the West primarily in their own minds long before moving to launch a military Jihad.

[Kevin Curry]

Not true, the most important element in the "cultural war" is the umma and re-establishing the caliphate.

Do you equate "caliphate" with an Islamic vanguard of pure believers as theorized by Sayyid Qutb? According to his work "Milestones" his was a more mystical vision that seems to borrow freely from Marxist theory. This vision anticipates a social order where no man is lord over any other man, but all voluntrily submit to the will of Allah and live lives governed strictly according to the Sha'ria. He insisted he was not proposing a theocracy by proxy, but it is hard to understand how worldwide implementation of the Sha'ria could happen in the absence of an authoritarian system.

[quidnunc]

optimistically_conservative wrote: I'm curious of your thoughts on how war against, or the banning of, religions (especially religions strongly tied to ethnicity) has played out in human history. Judaism, Catholicism, etc. - lots to choose from.

You don't expect much do you?

There isn't enough bandwidth available to the FR servers to adequately treat that subject.

But for a quick-and-dirty answer look at the Muslim world's campaigns against the non-Muslims within its borders.

Then optimistically_conservative wrote: I'm especially interested in your thoughts of the modern "blood libel" being applied to Muslims by modern Christians, which I find wonderfully ironic.

First let's be sure we have a common understanding of what a blood libel is, namely the accusation that a group sacrifices human beings and uses their blood in its rituals.

The only current blood libel of which I am aware is the one against Jews by Muslims that they, the Jews, use the blood of Muslim and Christian children in Passover matzos.

It a sign of the benighted state of Islam that the blood libel should be so widely repeated and believed.

As Christopher Hitchens said, we're dealing with people who have a Bronze Age mentality.

[optimistically_conservative]

Do you equate "caliphate" with an Islamic vanguard of pure believers as theorized by Sayyid Qutb?

No, although I understand how "visionaries" like Qutb have theorized about the next caliphate. My use of the term is more historical, looking at the previous self-proclaimed significant and peripheral caliphates.

[Old Student]

no, the most important factor in my cultural war is couched in religious terms, but it is not, in fact, religion. First off, none of Mohammed's words actually survived him, as he was illiterate. The Koran was written down from remembered speechs and talks he gave, as well as private conversations between himself and his followers, including his several wives. The Hadith, the laws developed from them are likewise constructs of others memories. Many of them, including practically everything every one of his wives said about the subject, have been dropped from the Koran and Hadith in the past thousand years or so. Anyone who tried to cling to those parts was killed as a heretic.

There are a number of "moderate" Muslim groups who do not divide the world into the Dar-al-Islam (House of Peace), and the Dar-al-Harb (House of War). The House of War refers to places where Muslims are a repressed minority, properly speaking, unless you're an Islamofacist (my favorite term for the seriously militant types.)We need to support those, and, especially, encourage them to support us. Funny thing, the Shia are some of the ones whose traditions would seem to make them most likely to be on our side; it hasn't worked out that way, though. The moderate Sunni are most likely to be our friends; The Turks, the Kurds, the Moroccans. The Wahhabi are most assuredly not, and neither are many of the Egyptians. Even the Saudi's don't know what they are, except that most of them are Wahhabi. So although it looks like religion, it is really culture. The nearest Christian equivelent would be Roman Catholics and Albigensians.

[optimistically_conservative]

But for a quick-and-dirty answer look at the Muslim world's campaigns against the non-Muslims within its borders.

Well, that's a lot of countries. Some treat the non-Muslims horribly, in others non-Muslims thrive. In those that mistreat their non-Muslims citizens it is very much like the treatment non-Catholics, or non-Church of England citizens received in the Bronze Age, as you correctly point out.

The only current blood libel of which I am aware is the one against Jews by Muslims that they, the Jews, use the blood of Muslim and Christian children in Passover matzos.

Many different groups have been accused, including Jews, Christians, Cathars, Knights Templar, Witches, Christian heretics, Roman Catholics, Gypsies, Wiccans, Druids, neopagans, Satanic cultists, and evangelical Protestant missionaries. (Wikipedia)

Current status of the blood libel myths (Religious Tolerence.org):

There are four main blood libel myths circulating at this time:

• Neo-nazis and Christian Identity groups vs. Jews. Some examples:
  • "Nazi Alert: Propaganda 1997" at: http://www.jdl.org/nazipropaganda97.html (A collection of Neo-Nazi hate images assembled by the Jewish Defense League. It is no longer online).
  • "Renaissance Press," at: http://home.onestop.net/rpress/index.html (Booksellers specializing in Nazi propaganda. The good news is that they only average about 73 hits a month)
  • Aryan Nations home page at: http://www.nidlink.com/~aryanvic/
• Some Fundamentalist Christians vs. a wide range of faith groups (Wiccans, Druids, other Neopagans, Satanists), on the Internet, in books and seminars. Some examples:
  • LOGOS Communication Consortium, "Unmasking the Truth about Witches," at: http://www.execpc.com/~dlbrown/logos/truthwit.htm
  • Balaam's Ass Publishing, "Witchcraft, Satanism and the New Age, at: http://balaams-ass.com/journal/warnings/witchcrf.htm (Particularly vicious against Druids)
  • Jay Rogers, "Child Sacrifice in the New Age: Salem's Witch Cult and America's Abortion Industry," at: http://forerunner.com/champion/X0039_Child_Sacrifice_in_t.html (This essay describes abortion as a standard New Age/Wiccan ritual)
• Some feminists promoting ritual abuse beliefs accusations vs. criminal gangs, government agencies, day care centers, preschools, numerous faith groups, etc. Some examples:
  • Doris E. Sanford, "Don't Make Me Go Back, Mommy: A Child's Book About Satanic Ritual Abuse," Questar Pub, (1990). You can buy this book from Amazon.com bookstore
  • Emilie P. Rose, "Reaching for the Light: A Guide for Ritual Abuse Survivors and Their Therapists," Pilgrim Press, (1996). Order it from Amazon.com bookstore
  • Judith Spencer, "Satan's High Priest," Pocket Books, (1997) Order it from Amazon.com bookstore
• Some Muslim media in the Middle East vs. Jews: Columnist Dr. Umayma Ahmad Al-Jalahma of King Faysal University in Al-Dammam, Saudi Arabia wrote an article in the Saudi daily newspaper on "The Jewish Holiday of Purim." In it, he stated that: "During this holiday, the Jew must prepare very special pastries, the filling of which is ... human blood... the Jews' spilling human blood to prepare pastry for their holidays is a well-established fact, historically and legally, all throughout history. This was one of the main reasons for the persecution and exile that were their lot in Europe and Asia at various times." According to columnist Joseph Farah, "The article goes on to describe how the Jews drain the blood from their young victims and the pleasure these 'Jewish vampires' derive from these actions." 1,2

  On 2002-MAR-22, Turki al-Sudairi, editor-in-chief of the newspaper repudiated the article. He denounced it in an editorial, saying: "What has been mentioned by this writer is wrong. It neither reflects the opinion of Al-Riyadh newspaper nor the Saudi government. We have full respect for all religions." He was allegedly out of the country when the article was published. He also terminated his newspaper's contract with the freelance author. 3

  A book by the defense minister of Syria has reached its eighth printing. It is a best-seller in the Arab world. The author accuses Jews of murdering Christians and using their blood to bake matzahs for Passover. 4

I'm concerned that we don't create a "blood libel" of Muslims murdering Christian and Jewish children - labeling all Muslims rather than the terrorists/jihadists.

[Old Student]

"There are two main branches of Islam and a scant handful of subsects. "

The subsects, or rather a minority of the most extreme of the subsects, mostly Wahhabi, are the real problem. If we (or anyone else, for that matter) can manage to kill them off without generating too many more like them, the war will win itself.

You don't have to be NOT devout to get along in the world as a Muslim, you merely have to be left to practice your religion as you beleive it should be practiced (non-violently, for most of them). The Dar-al-Harb, or House of War properly applies to places where Muslims are a suppressed minority. Like France, for instance. Improper action on our part could make the USA part of that place, if we're not careful. That is why I say it is a cultural war, not a religious war. Benjamin Rush (one of the Founding Fathers) wanted us to have mandatory religious education here, and he would rather we taught Islam than no religion at all.

[Old Student]

Finish the thought, fool!

Roman Catholics and Albigensians are both Christians, at least from outside the two churches at the time. The Roman Catholic church exterminated the Albigensians because their beliefs were "heresy" to the Roman Catholics, "Catholic" meaning "Universal." Martin Luther almost got the same treatment a few years later, despite the fact that he was a Roman Catholic priest. This is cultural, not religious. These folks broke cultural rules, and some thought that they had to be punished because their culture demanded it. Nothing in the Bible does, unless you have a really uncharitable interpretation. Some Muslims are that way with the Koran and Hadith, and those are fair game, as far as I'm concerned. Anyone who wants to leave me alone to tend to my own business is fine by me, whatever his religion. Anyone who wants to force me to do anything I don't want to do, religious or otherwise, is the enemy. My church, and many others, believe that we are supposed to tell others what we believe, along the lines of telling your neighbor when his house is on fire, but we're not going to force him to dump water over his roof if he doesn't see the smoke and flames.

[quidnunc]

Old Student wrote: You don't have to be NOT devout to get along in the world as a Muslim, you merely have to be left to practice your religion as you beleive it should be practiced (non-violently, for most of them). The Dar-al-Harb, or House of War properly applies to places where Muslims are a suppressed minority. Like France, for instance. Improper action on our part could make the USA part of that place, if we're not careful. That is why I say it is a cultural war, not a religious war. Benjamin Rush (one of the Founding Fathers) wanted us to have mandatory religious education here, and he would rather we taught Islam than no religion at all.

The problem is that many Muslims in non-Muslim countries want to be free to practice their religions in ways which are unacceptable to the societies in which they live.

We cannot, for instance, allow Sharia law to be legimitated here in the US even though some portion of the Muslim community might want it and consider themselved to be discriminated-against because they aren't allowed to practice it.

Like I said, in Islam religion and culture are insepearable, and many of the practices mandated by Islam are antithetical to contemporary Western society.

[Old Student]

In the US they may practice their religion as they please, subject to US law, which will not be displaced by Sharia. (although there are parts of Sharia that I'd like to see put in place; like beheading for capital crimes, but I won't insist.)

"Many Muslims" is not sufficient justification for condeming them all, either. This is America, where we are innocent until proven guilty, not France, where guilt is presumed until innocence is proved. Those who can adapt should be welcome; are, in fact, in law. Those who can't adapt can run afoul of our law and get deported. We already have those mechanisms in place, too. I'll admit that the INS is not nearly as efficient as I'd like, but we can fix that without destroying the ideas of our society.

[Old Student]

For that matter, religion and culture are inseperable for any true believer in ANY religion. The US has laws against plural marriages because they decided to criminalize what was previously legal behavior by members of my church. We adapted our culture to suit US law. Muslims can do as much. They will, if they want to remain here.

I'm LDS, btw. Mormon, as most people call us.

[quidnunc]

The anti-Jewish blood libel peddled by the Christian Identity/neo-Nazi goons is of a piece with that advanced by the Muslims.

As for the others, they are so obscure as to be inconsequential.

As far as creating a blood libel against Muslims, there is no evidence that this is taking place.

We must not be so solicitous of Muslims that we supress or distort the truth in an effort to protect them against public disapproval.

The Muslims themselves could prevent any such backlash against themselves by speaking out clearly and unambiguously against the terrorists and anti-Semites within their ranks.

That they have not done so peaks volumes to me.

If Muslims constitute a potential Fifth Column here in the U.S. — and I believe that a certain percentage of them do — then we as a society should be aware of the fact so that we can be on guard against it.

[Old Student]

No arguement here, at all. You're dead on with this post...

I, too, would like to see more prominent Muslims, here and abroad, take such a stance. The ones here have no excuse for not doing so. Some have, in fact, but not nearly enough.

[Viking2002]

Allow me to quote my Commander-in-Chief:

BRING IT ON.

[optimistically_conservative]

Re: Post #71

I agree with almost all of that.

I would argue that the anti-Jewish blood libel peddled by Muslims is of a piece with that advanced by Christians against Jews for nearly a millenia, preceded by the one peddled by Romans against Christians in the first centuries A.D.

I think what's most important in what you post is the Muslims' role in tackling the extreme aspects of their culture that has not only allowed, but publicly encouraged, a violent international campaign. One of the reasons I see this as a cultural war is that the changes required will not come from religious leaders but from cultural leaders that challenge inciting violent solutions expoused in their religion, media, and acedemia.