[lit-ideas] Re: Harry S. Bush

Eric Yost wrote:

"This article, if people can read it without instant visceral
backlash, is sure to spark some controversy."


Typical UScentric commentary that sees all global events as being
about the U.S.  Given my context, I will focus on the absurd
characterization of Islam.

The author writes:

"All this [i.e. tolerance of Islamic radicalism] came to an abrupt end
after 9/11. Sophisticates everywhere ridiculed the uncompromising Bush
stance, 'Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists,' as a
cowboy stunt, but it was swiftly successful. Governments across the
Muslim world quickly changed their conduct."

This completely ignores the condemnation and rejection of Al Qaeda
following 9/11 by Muslims around the world, on the basis of Islamic
teachings.  The jihadists have gained recruits because of 9/11, Iraq
and Spain, but they have also isolated themselves from the larger body
of Muslim believers because they are unIslamic.  Muslim leaders are
guilty of being too tolerant and timid, but after 9/11 the
condemnation of terrorism and violence has been made on Islamic
grounds, not fear of the U.S.  Here in S.E. Asia, I repeatedly hear
condemnation of violent radicalism that draws explicitly on the
teachings of Quran and the Sunnah.  It is delusional to think that
Muslims around the world have changed because of Bush's adolescent
'With us or against us' threat.

The author continues:

"In different ways, other governments in Muslim countries all the way
to Indonesia also took their stand with Bush and the US against the
jihadists, even though jihad against the infidel is widely regarded as
an Islamic duty."

Again, simply wrong.  A very small percentage of Muslims understand
jihad as being about infidels or an Islamic duty.  The majority of
Muslims understand jihad as being a personal inner struggle.  In fact
Quran teaches that it is better to avoid confronting the infidel.  The
only time jihad, or struggle is permitted, is in the face of
injustice, and almost only through non-violent means.  Quran and the
Sunnah allow violence in very few circumstances.  Violent jihad is
certainly not widely understood as an Islamic duty and is in fact
rejected by most Muslims.

Finally:

"The Koran, after all, explicitly promises victory in all things to
the believers, making Muslim weakness the source of agonising, if
unspoken, doubts about the credibility of the faith itself. That is
the true source of the resentment that no policy accommodations in the
middle east could possibly assuage."

This is nonsense and it is hard not to see this as being anything
short of prejudice against Islam.  There are many teachings in Quran,
Sunnah, and hadiths that praise faithfulness and steadfastness in the
face of suffering and oppression.  Yes, there are passages that talk
about victory as a sign of God's blessing, but there are far more
passages that discuss how to be faithful while being oppressed.

The article is remarkably simplistic in its account of global events.
Yes, some good has come from the actions of the Bush administration,
but to claim that these events were caused by Bush policies is to
simply be wrong.  Muslims do not hold the beliefs they hold because of
Bush, nor do they change their religious beliefs because of Bush.

I hate to break the news to people like this author, but the U.S. is
neither this important nor that powerful.


Sincerely,

Phil Enns
Yogyakarta, Indonesia
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts: