The War Of Ideas
Please read this post by one of the best bloggers in the entire blogosphere regarding Islamism: Muslihoon.
Excerpt:
Two people I admire very much (Dr. Victor Davis Hanson and Oriana Fallaci)—joined with many others I also admire—have made our engagement with Islamism clear: it is not only a war with bullets but also a war of wills and of civilizations (so to speak). If we focus only on the military aspect, we still might loose. We need to focus on all aspects of this war.
Islamists characterize The West’s response to the Islamist assault as a resumption of the Crusades. This is a revealing comment because the Crusades were launch as a response to Islamist jihad against Christian lands. Therefore, if we are engaging in a new Crusade, they must be waging a new jihad against us. But some of them see no “new� in this situation: it’s a continuation, rather than resumption or renewal, of the typical contact and engagement between The West and Islam. As such, we need to recognize that their jihad against us is not seen as a new movement or program but one that has continued since the birth of Islam. It may seem to have ended and then resumed due to the abolishment of the Caliphate or (before even that) Europe’s effective check on Ottoman expansion (and, therefore, the Caliphate’s expansion). But the Initial Jihad may be said to be continuing, and it may also be said that this is how Islamists view their actions.
Part of this jihad deals with Islamist propaganda. This is a part of the da‛wah ilÄ?-l-islÄ?m (دعوة إلى الإسلام, inviting people to Islam) and tablÄ«gh al-islÄ?m (تبليغ الإسلام, propagation or promotion of Islam) aspects of jihad, attempts to conquer minds and hearts to effectuate not only surrender to the Islamic polity or the supremacy of the Islamic political system but also to secure our submission to Islam itself. Although often seen in the context of trying to convert people to Islam (or, as it is said more technically, inviting people to Islam), we should not divorce these proselytizing efforts from efforts to defend Islam, promote Islam, make Islam look good, secure popular respect and approval for Islam, and establishing and defending Islam’s superiority. If we don’t convert but we concede to Islamist demands for special considerations, they would have won; they would have been successful. But, remember that propaganda is propaganda: it never displays the entire picture. In some cases, it may make spurious claims or perpetuate falsehoods.
Unfortunately, we have made the Islamists’ work easier: we don’t have pride in our civilization, we do not defend our civilization, and we too easily concede to the duplicitous remarks by peoples of other civilizations. We don’t challenge other civilizations as they challenge ours.
Dr. Victor Davis Hanson and Oriana Fallaci have warned us that if we don’t begin to engage ourselves with learning about and appreciating our civilization and its history, we stand in danger of loosing the propaganda war: we stand to loose hearts and minds, our own hearts and minds.
Pride is a flaw. We should not believe our civilization is perfect or infallible. (But then, no civilization is perfect or infallible, the Islamist civilization included.) But we must be confident in our civilization: confident in its strength, confident in its history (spotty as it is), confident in its superiority to all other alternatives, confident in what we get from it, confident in what it offers others, and confident in the fact that it will prevail over all others. The last point will only come about if we remain faithful to our civilization; that is, it will happen if we don’t whore ourselves out to foreign and barbaric civilizations or systems, if we don’t commit civilizational adultery and go after strange and abusive men, no matter how seductive their words and appearances may be. It has always been the case that when we have nourished our civilization, our civilization has nourished us and vaunted us to the very top of the world.
Read the whole thing and weigh in.
15 Responses to “The War Of Ideas”
I partly agree with the post, but have a few objections. I agree that the west in general has become a little to apologetic, on many fronts, not just in it’s relation to Islam. I’ve always been amazed at how Political Correctness, despite being seemingly despised by a fair proportion of the population, has grown in power to the point of bowing even the most powerful of men (e.g. The Pope). This happens not only between civilizations but within them. In high school I had to all but apologize for being white. I think that this tendency is what causes the ill of which the post speaks. In part I think it originates from a wish to move away from the attitude of there being ONE SINGLE road for being right (white, male, Christian and rich) that got terribly out of hand.
I agree that we must not be afraid to advocate for our culture, to voice that we think our way is the best way at this point in history. I don’t think we should evangelize. I firmly believe that people have the right to be as backward and silly as they choose, as long as they don’t force ME to either agree with it or imitate it, and as long as they follow MY rules when on MY turf. Iran can force me to wear a jihab while on their soil, it’s their country, but then they have no right to complain if I demand that their religious symbols stay out of my countries public schools. This is a problem because they do evangelize, but I believe that people born in the west will be generally very unlikely to be seduced by Islamic culture, because, frankly, it’s not a lot of fun. Immigrants can either shape up or ship out.
There is one danger. Fine that we believe our way is the best way, but I don’t think we should go back to colonial thinking. Thinking that we are the very best and that no one else has anything to contribute leads to disadvantages. First of all, it encourages ignorance of other cultures in the populace. Fine that you don’t imitate them, but you must understand them because even if you don’t want to be like them, you will have to deal with them. Another thing is that it encourages rigidity in a culture. Since our culture is “the best� we don’t ever have to change anything, since we’re already the best. There is another culture that has been doing that for hundreds of years, the Islamic one. Imitate them at your own risk.
Lynx thanks for commenting on this article so thoughtfully. I agree with your nuances: Indeed, we should not go back to kolonial thinking. However, I do not think that Muslihoon is actually advocating that, I think that he was simply using that, to make a point.
I believe that we should try to find a middle-road between what we are doing now and colonial thinking. As is obvious, colonial thinking led to terrible, terrible things. On the other hand, our ‘moral equivalence / cultural equivalence’ mentality, is leading to terrible things as well.
Listen, I believe that our culture is superior. If I did not believe this, I would be advocating us to go back to how we lived in the Middle-Ages, or to adopt the culture of, for instance, Middle-Eastern countries.
Most people in the West believe that our culture is superior. Even those on the far left, who advocate cultural relativism.
It has simply become political incorrect, to speak this way. Well, I do not feel myself bound to political correctness. In fact, political correctness, is making our cultures weak.
For instance, they are now building an Islamic hospital in Rotterdam I believe. A what? Yes, an Islamic hospital. Only food acceptable to strict Muslims, women separated from men, men treated by male doctors, women by female doctors, BS like that. I refuse to pay for such a hospital. Hospitals should be universal: based on openness and equality. Neutral. Utterly ridiculous that we are now even building them / paying them their own freaking hospitals. What the heck is happening here man?
They come here. They adapt. If they don’t want to, they should leave. It is that simple. No Islamic schools. No Islamic hospitals. If you want women teachers to walk around in burqas, great, go and migrate to Iran.
However, that does not mean that we cannot learn anything from other cultures. Our culture, while being superior, is not perfect. We must improve it, we must improve ourselves and by doing so we will improve our culture.
Michael, are your taxes going to support this hospital? If not, then it’s not conceptually different from Catholic hospitals we have in the USA.
This comment needs to be understood within the context of one that precedes it:
I’d say this blogger is plainly un-self-conscious. Yes, there’s such a thing as too much self-consciousness, but this to me seems a clear example of way too little.
Rather like that of our POTUS, in my opinion.
jjc,
I had the same thought about Catholic hospitals but I’m pretty sure that MvdG is talking about something publicly funded, as he implies with his statement:
It is an important distinction; any group that wants to fund its own hospital in order to operate according to the religious sensibilities of its members should be permitted to do so, but they shouldn’t expect the taxpayers to fund this.
Of course it is. It is not a private hospital. It is being paid for by (mainly) public funds. Yes, they can have their own hospitals, but not with my freaking money. They can call it an “Islamic hospital”, as long as they do not bring in all kinds of rules that collide with Western values, such as the strict separation / inequality of men and women.
It doesn’t work that way in the USA, which is why I asked. CS correctly picked up on what you implied.
I have to admit something seems to be missing here. What compels the Dutch govt. to fund this or any hospital developed on a private basis? Could Scientologists do the same?
Seems like, for all of his posturing, the author doesn’t really think we have anything to learn from other cultures, and also, if our culture is truely so superior, then why aren’t we prevailing already? If ‘western’ culture means feeling arrogant, self-rightous, and unwilling to listen to other points of view, then I want none of it.
We will never be able to sucsessfully challenge other cultures until we learn to challenge ourselves. We concede duplicitous remarks by people of our own culture all the time, how can we hope to do any different with another culture with anyting but blind arrogance?
In such a Challenging spirit:
The pope recently remarked on Islam’s rejection of Logos, or logic. While his words may have been chosen…. confidently, he fails to truly accept for himself the challenge which he proposes. The pope cites, and appears to agree with the idea that “God is logos”. Yet at the same time, The bible, both Old and New Testament are riddled with inconsistencies both minor and profound. It would seem to follow, if the Pope does truly wish to commit himself to the Logos of God, then he must accept that the Bible is not the Word of God, but rather of men, who made mistakes.
Kevin H,
You need to learn a bit about Catholic theology to realize that your argument is a straw man. Catholics do not believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible. Thus, the arguments you linked to would be valid criticisms if a fundamentalist Christian had made the remarks about Logos, but they don’t apply to the Pope’s assertions about the Catholic belief system.
I finally had a chance to read and digest the entire post by Muslihoon and I find it very compelling. Like other commenters, I tend to think he goes a bit too far with the nostalgia for imperialism, but I definitely agree that many Americans currently go too far with relativism and self criticism. I do understand the value in both of those concepts but I feel that they are being taken to harmful extremes.
Coincidentally I was rereading this article today by a neoconservative writer, Fukuyama. While I don’t agree with Fukuyama’s position on the Iraq war, I do respect his reasons for opposition (and that he openly admits that his current stance is a reversal of his earlier opinion). I think this article is a must read for anyone who wants to understand the nuances of neoconservatism, and how this particular neocon views the failure of Iraq.
I mention the coincidence because many of the themes that Muslihoon addressed are also taken up by Fukuyawa in his discussion of where he believes the neocon movement went astray in the Bush doctrine. In his view, it seems that the Neocons who helped formulate the Bush doctrine selectively favored militaristic solutions at the expense of peaceful hegemony, misread historical events which lead to an overly optimistic expectation of the ease of planting democracy, and ignored former tenets of neoconservatism as they relate to the laws of unintended consequences in social engineering.
A major difference in Fukuyawa’s criticism and that which we often hear from liberals though, is that Fukuyawa never questions the premise that America’s power can and should be used for moral purposes. It’s strictly arguments about how this premise was taken in a direction that didn’t match the reality of the situation in Iraq.
Incidentally, he doesn’t advocate withdrawing from Iraq even though he now thinks the invasion was a mistake; in fact he believes that would be disastrous. On that I agree with him, as well as this:
CS
But if you truley look at the Bible as a historical document, not Divine, then there is no logical reason to hold it above Artisotle, Nitche, Adam Smith or many of the other brilliant, one might say inspired, thinkers.
I cannot find much Logos in some of the many stances of this pope or the Catholic Church. From birth control, to the stance of the enternal soul of a single cell, I see little logical thought and mostly blind adherence to the words of a few dead MEN.
It all comes down to this: If the Bible truely is to be considered “Sacred” then if we are to satisfy the idea “God is Logos” then the Bible must be more than simple ‘interpreted’, it must be logical.
Oh, and one more thing. Does the pope challenge the rejection of Logos in Fundamental Christinity as much as he challenges the same in Islam? I don’t think so. This is a good example of challenging the foreign rather than the familiar.
Kevin H,
In the Pope’s recent speech, he alluded to what you are asserting: that secular thinkers also can be inspired by God. He praises the Hellenistic philosophy and his whole speech is an argument for maintaining the ‘reason’ part of ‘faith and reason’. It doesn’t logically follow that the Church has to accept all secular thinking as being more logical than the philosophers whose ideas coincide with our beliefs. That would be complete relativism, which the Church rejects. Obviously the difference is in the basic premise of whether or not there is an absolute Truth.
So, if you don’t like the Church’s teachings about homosexuality, for example, you are of course free to reject them and even argue against them. But you miss the logic in the teachings because you haven’t read the whole context of them. The Church asserts that homosexuality is an act, not a state of being. That doesn’t mean that they reject scientific/biological evidence that some people have a proclivity toward homosexuality, but they do feel that the act itself is a choice. The consistency that you miss is that the Church also expects other groups to make difficult choices; for example, divorced persons are called to practice celibacy as well. You may think that is too harsh, and you may reject it, but that doesn’t mean that it’s illogical. In the words of Bob Dylan, “Don’t criticize what you don’t understand.”
In the now famous Sept 12 speech, Benedict does challenge fundamentalist belief here:
Your question though, was “does the pope challenge the rejection of Logos in Fundamental Christianity as much“. No. Why should he? If there were currently a wave of Christian on non-Christian violence, then he’d be wrong to focus on Muslim vs. non-Muslim. But that’s simply not the case, and the whole point of him bringing up the Logos and faith issue is as it relates to the use of violence. I don’t see any reason that he should bring up, say, the creationism issue. The Catholic Church is on record with the position that evolution and our non-literal interpretation of the creation story are compatible, which obviously differs from the fundamentalist position. But why should he continually hammer fundamentalists about this point of disagreement? No one is being blown up over their beliefs on this issue.
CS
Looks like we aren’t going to agree anytime soon, but…
One issue that many Christians skirt when talking about the Bible as ‘interpreted’ is that they still see it as infallible. If the Bible cannot agree with itself weither the Son of God questioned his father with his dieing breath, then Christians should be willing to admit that the Bible can be wrong, and must be wrong in some places. That is Logos. If one can admit that, then I see little other context to view homosexuality in other than the history of burnings and stoneing which the church has condoned for hundreds of years. Nor can I see much context for the rejection of birth control other than the thousands of unwanted babies living in poverty in Africa, and the spread of AIDS related to this problem.
The Pope’s comments are two fold, once against violence and religion, which I agree can certainly be leveled at Muslims more than Christian fundamentalists. However, his other challenge is purely against rejection of Logos, of which both groups are guilty. Would the pope like to remove Scandinavia and Brittan from the EU simple because they (as majority protestant) believe in sola scriptura? No of course not because his problem with Turkey’s religious traditions is that they don’t read the same book as him, not weither they believe in Logos. Again, challenging the foreing before the familliar.
Kevin H,
No, I’m sure we won’t come to any real agreement, but on your main criticism about the inconsistencies of scripture, I would just say that the Catholic interpretation is such that many of the stories and events are taken as allegory, and thus the inconsistencies aren’t materially important. The details of the stories aren’t even taught as literal truths or as though they were historical accounts; the importance is the moral lesson behind the story or the implications about God’s interactions with man.
On your other point about EU, I guess it is a qualitative difference; yes, there are important doctrinal and theological differences in the way Protestants and Catholics view things, but they are much closer than the difference between Christianity as a whole and Islam. I’m not sure that I agree with the Pope on his opinion about Turkey and the EU, but that really isn’t a dogmatic assertion that Catholics are asked to believe anyway; it is simply his opinion.