When civilisations clash, higher book sales are guaranteed

By Paul White
Op-Ed in the Sydney Morning Herald, 29 September 2003
Edward Said was right in saying some commentators overhype the threat of
militant Islam, writes Paul White.
The Muslim suicide-bombers are coming. Or are they? Edward Said, the Palestinian
thinker who died last week, spent his life exposing the Wests failure to engage
constructively with the East. As a Palestinian who was also Western-educated, Said
was able to view the Wests failure with exceptional clarity and objectivity.
Said showed how distorted stereotypes such as militant Islam which the United
States especially uses to justify its periodic wars in the developing world have
convinced millions that the countries that use them are hostile to their way of life.
Last week also, Indonesias President, Megawati Soekarnoputri, and the United
Nations secretary-general, Kofi Annan, warned us of the costs of this failure.
Blundering into countries such as Afghanistan and Iraq with all guns blazing to
impose democracy has achieved nothing good.
Meanwhile, the root causes of conflict in troubled countries remains untouched. A US
Jewish scholar, Rabbi Arthur Schneir, comments in Interfaith Dialogue and
Peacebuilding that religion is only the excuse for conflict never its real cause.
Conflict is rooted in inequality and injustice. Said would have agreed.
Other commentators pose as our saviours from vicious extremists. While speaking
the language of moderation and reason, such commentators are at pains to insist that
they have no objection to decent, moderate Muslims. Or so it appears on the
surface. It can be argued that the targeting of militant Islam continues the Wests
anti-Islamic traditions.
The first problem with militant Islam is that this concept like military
intelligence is an oxymoron. Terrorism is the indiscriminate use of violence
against innocent people for the purpose of furthering political goals. The word Islam
means peace. Islam is not a vengeful creed, but promotes the mutual teaching of
truth and constant patience. Any reasonable examination of Islams message shows
that Islam and terrorism are incompatible.
What are Muslims bound to believe about terrorism by their religion? The Koran
stipulates that the murder of a single person is equivalent to that person slaying all
humanity, whereas if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the
whole people. In other words, irrespective of whether Osama bin Laden or any other
Muslim claims to be acting in accordance with their religion, they are violating its
most basic principles if they engage in terrorism.
What is the anti-Muslim brigade up to? Said claimed these commentators were
determined to make sure that the [Islamic] threat is kept before our eyes, the better

to excoriate Islam for terror, despotism and violence, while assuring themselves
profitable consultancies, frequent TV appearances and book contracts.
Samuel P. Huntingtons Clash of Civilizations is the lodestar of the anti-Muslim
brigade. He argues: The underlying problem for the West is not Islamic
fundamentalism. It is Islam, a different civilisation whose people are convinced of the
superiority of their culture and are obsessed with the inferiority of their power.
Huntingtons text attracted much attention when it first appeared as an essay in 1993
and then as a book three years later. The horrific events of September 11, 2001,
catapulted it into prominence as the alleged explanation as to why Islam is
supposedly hostile to all other world views. Huntington attempts to convince us that
Islam in some form is responsible for bin Laden and other terrorists who hijack their
religion. His arguments have been used to support the arguments of US policymakers
as the justification for wars against Afghanistan and Iraq, and for threatening wars
against Iran and Saudi Arabia. These arguments have been popularised by Australian
politicians and sections of the media with similar agendas.
Yet we in the West should admit that our attitudes to Islam and Arabs are neither
blameless nor particularly noble. This legacy can be traced to the Middle Ages, and
the perceived threat to Western economic and political interests posed by the dynamic
Islamic civilisation of the time. The West never got over losing to the Muslims in the
Crusades.
Said argued that the foundations of our understanding of Islam, and the Middle East
in general, were tainted motivated by racism, colonial interests and antipathy.
Huntington warns the West to prepare for a time when the civilisations will face off,
the non-West against the West. A new world war is most likely to take place between
civilisations, probably between the Islamic and Western ones.
For Huntington the Islamic world comprises the most fractious and unstable of the socalled civilisations. Muslim critics of Huntington see his theory as an exercise to
defend Western interests. They point out that he is too ready to portray the nonWestern nations as belligerent while ignoring the Wests record of aggression and
domination.
Islam cannot be the cause of global terrorism if the supposed practitioners of militant
Islam are acting contrary to both the letter and spirit of that religion. Western
commentators should ponder the fascinating and life-enhancing values and practices
of Islam which contribute to peace and which are shared in all of the great religions.
Dr Paul White is a scholar of Middle East politics and Islam who works for the
Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies at the University of Sydney.