Transforming
Islam into Acceptable Forms for the West is the
Main Neo-conservative Project
By Abdus Sattar Ghazali
CA
Neo-conservatives'
endeavors to create a market economy version of
Islam - bereft of its basic tenets - got a boost
recently when Reverend James Schall, Professor
of government at Georgetown University and a Jesuit
priest, vigorously defended their efforts. In
an article entitled "When War Must Be the Answer"
published in the December/January issue of Policy
Review, Schall writes about "making Islam over
into politically acceptable forms."
This is the main neoconservative project and Schall
argues that this program can be defended because
no one, including the churches, is willing to
examine in a serious way the truth claims of Islam.
According to Schall, this not only includes Islam's
own understanding of Allah and of Judaism and
Christianity, but also its practiced way of life
and the direct relation of its religion and its
politics. He also explains the ultimate objectives
behind the effort to provide models and forms
of "democratic" and "free" political systems.
Schall is blunt in pointing out that the neocons'
effort is to undermine those teachings and customs
of Islam that cause the problem, the first of
which is the claim of the truth of Islamic revelation
and its understanding of the absolute will of
God as arbitrary.
Schall's remarks resonate with the neoconservatives
at the Washington-based think tank, the Rand Corporation,
who published two studies last year in a bid to
create a market economy version of Islam. The
Rand study published in March 2004 - entitled
"Civil Democratic Islam: Partners, Resources,
and Strategies" - suggested selectively ignoring
or rejecting elements of the original religious
doctrine of Islam. In order to achieve this objective,
the Study called for an alliance with the modernists
in the Muslim world. It defines a moderate as
a Muslim who believes that the Qur'an is a legend
and that some verses (suras) may have been falsely
or inaccurately recorded in the Qur'an. According
to the study, modernists believe in the historicity
of Islam, i.e., that Islam as it was practiced
in the days of the Prophet reflected eternal truths
as well as historical circumstances that were
appropriate to that time but that are no longer
valid. They also believe that Islam is responsible
for the underdevelopment of the Muslims because
prosperity and progress depend on modernity and
democracy. In December 2004, the Rand Corporation
issued another study - entitled "The Muslim World
After 9/11" - which also called for empowering
the Muslim moderates in the Muslim world.
A summary of this 678-page study was issued under
the title 'US Strategy in the Muslim World after
9/11'. As an essential component of an effective
US policy toward the Muslim World, the new study
stressed the support to what it called "civil
Islam" that is the Muslim civil society groups
that advocate moderation. Keeping in view the
two Rand reports in the background of constant
media and conservative Christian rights campaign
against Islam and Muslims helps us to understand
why after 9/11 the so-called progressive, moderate
and ijtehadi Muslim groups are cropping up in
the US which are squarely blaming the Islamic
faith for all the ills of the 1.3 billion Muslims.
These agenda-driven groups have joined the chorus
of "reject all basic tenets of Islam." Clash of
civilizations Reverting to Schall's views on Islam
and war.
Schall strongly believes in Huntington's theory
of the "Clash of Civilizations" and sees the current
situation in the world as a new war of civilizations.
Huntington says that the centuries old military
interaction between the West and Islam could become
more virulent. For Huntington, Islam is ideologically
hostile and anti-Western. Drawing upon Huntington's
concept, Schall argues: "Our leaders, both civil
and religious, have been loath so to designate
it as a civilizational war. Islam is said to be
a religion of peace. To suspect that it is a threat
on a much broader scale is one of those things
that must be classified as 'secret writing.' "
He further says that it goes against the dominant
religious mood, namely, ecumenism, and against
the liberal mode, namely, tolerance, according
to which all issues can be resolved without war.
The 21st century, it seems clear, will more likely
be a century of confrontation with world religions
rather than with world ideologies, as was the
20th century, Schall writes in an article, "Belloc
On The Apparently Unconvertible Religion (Islam)",
published in 2003.
He even describes the current US military operation
in Iraq as a war against an expanding Islam. The
International Herald Tribune on January 11, 2005,
quoted Schall as saying: "I always thought it
was a mistake not say what Iraq really was, that
is, a war against an expanding Islam. I can put
myself in Bush's position, of course, and understand
it was a prudential act to say it was a war on
terrorism." (Politicus: Bush might be heading
for tangle with neocons by John Vinocur) Borrowing
from the French Catholic historian Hilaire Belloc,
Schall argues that the crusades (1095-1200) did
not split Islam geographically; if the crusades
had cut Africa from Asia, Islam may have declined.
He insists that many of the advocates of occupation
of Iraq today use this theory of the need to split
Islam and hence reduce its geopolitical power.
Schall predicts a long struggle between Islam
and the West. He argues that theorizing that the
"terrorists" is merely a side-show, a tiny minority
which will naturally pass out of existence, is
an easy way out of considering the more basic
problem of the civilizational movement and what
to do about it.
"This consideration is based upon the notion that
Islam is a confident civilizational movement,
suddenly aware, thanks to the judgment of its
more radical leaders, of the possibility of continuing
its historic mission: spreading the religion by
force or other means throughout the world." "Islam
has another soul and another destiny which it
seeks to spread, by its own proven means," he
says. War is a virtue Let us now discuss Shall's
views on the necessity of war. He is a Machiavellian.
In his latest article - When War Must Be the Answer
- in the Policy Review magazine, he strong supports
war as a virtue. Citing Machiavelli's advice that
a prince should spend most of his time preparing
for war, he says: A common, oft-heard theory about
war today, by contrast, is that we have "grown"
or progressed out of it.
The assertion that war may still be necessary
is looked upon as "anti-progressive," a sin against
"history." No "reasonable" person can hold the
view that war may be necessary. Schall rejects
this notion and cites Herbert Deane's summation
of Augustine's view of war: "Wars are inevitable
as long as men and their societies are moved by
avarice, greed, and lust for power, the permanent
drives of sinful men. It is, therefore, self-delusion
and folly to expect that a time will ever come
in this world when wars will cease and 'men will
beat their swords into ploughshares.
" He is mindful of the destruction and killing
of innocent civilians in the war, which is now
termed as collateral damage. Though much carnage
and chaos happen in any historic war, and on every
side, still we cannot conclude from this that
"war is not the answer," he says. In this regard
he quotes C.S. Lewis, who wrote in his essay "Why
I Am Not a Pacifist:" The doctrine that war is
always a greater evil seems to imply a materialist
ethic, a belief that death and pain are the greatest
evils. But I do not think they are. I think the
suppression of a higher religion by a lower, of
even a higher secular culture by a lower, a much
greater evil.
The worst modern tyranny in the twenty-first century
will not come from armies but from their lack,
from the lack of capacity and courage to use them
wherever they are needed to protect justice, freedom,
and truth, Schall argues by adding: "If war is
not the "answer," what is? How do we rid ourselves
of tyrants or protect ourselves from ideologies
or fanatics who attack us with their own principles
and weapons, not ours?" After establishing his
case for war, Schall points out that the worst
modern tyranny in the twenty-first century will
not come from armies but from the lack of capacity
and courage to use them wherever they are needed
to protect justice, freedom, and truth. "If war
is not the 'answer,' what is? How do we rid ourselves
of tyrants or protect ourselves from ideologies
or fanatics who attack us with their own principles
and weapons, not ours?" In short, Schall is a
Machiavellian like the neocon, Michael Ledeen,
who seeks to apply Machiavellian principles to
the modern world when he says in his book "The
War Against the Terror Masters" that as "we wage
this war (against terrorism), we must constantly
remind ourselves of five basic rules of successful
political and military leadership, as defined
half a millennium ago by Machiavelli." He stresses
that these Machiavellian principles are as true
today as they were during the Renaissance, at
the beginning of the modern era:
1. Man is more inclined to do evil than to do
good. Good people are rare, and are constantly
threatened by the evil-minded. Peace is not the
normal condition of mankind, and moments of peace
are invariably the result of war. Since we want
peace, we must win the war. Since our enemies
are inclined to do evil, we must win decisively
and then impose virtue, until the people learn
the rules of civil society.
2. The only important thing is wining. Machiavelli
tells us that if we win, everyone will judge our
methods to have been appropriate. If we lose,
they will despise us.
3. If we have to do unpleasant things, it is best
to do them all at once. Strike decisively, get
it over with quickly. The diplomats will always
say that we can achieve our goals with a little
bit of nastiness and a whole lot of talking, but
they are wrong.
4. It is better to be feared than loved. We can
lead by the force of high moral example. It has
been done. But it's risky, because people are
fickle, and they will abandon us at the first
sign of failure. Fear is much more reliable and
lasts longer. Once we show that we are capable
of defeating our enemies, our power will be far
greater.
5. Luck can wreck the finest plans. Machiavelli
played cards whenever he had the chance, and he
knew that a bad run could ruin the finest player.
Machiavelli ruefully admitted that the best one
could hope for was to have good luck about half
the time. But that should be enough for us. We're
a lost stronger than the terror masters.
One may ask, do we see implementation of these
principles in the disproportionate use of force
and indiscriminate bombings and killings in Afghanistan
and Iraq because the neo-cons and their supporters
believe that they are "fighting evil?" Going back
to Schall's argument on clash of civilizations,
one may also ask if the current "war against terror"
was not to stop the expansion of Islam, but for
oil and also for hegemony that is the main thrust
of Huntington's theory. Abdus Sattar Ghazali is
the Executive Editor of the online magazine American
Muslim Perspective www.amperspective.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
