One of the most important conclusions of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission was mostly overlooked for reasons best known to the major media. It reads as follows: "The enemy is not just 'terrorism,' some generic evil. ... The catastrophic threat at this moment in history is ... the threat posed by Islamist terrorism, especially the al-Qaida network, its affiliates and its ideology." Clear enough? I think so.
I wrote a column a couple of years ago that asked the question, Is Islam a peaceful religion? I received plenty of responses, both pro and con, although many Americans tiptoe around this question because we're tolerant people who want to respect the religious freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution. But we need to take another look at this issue, especially after the recent arrest of the "imam" (leader) of an Albany, N.Y., mosque who was arrested in an alleged plot to purchase a shoulder-fired missile that would be used to assassinate the Pakistani ambassador to the U.S.
In a Washington Post op-ed piece, a Bard College military history professor, Caleb Carr, warned against framing the War Against Terrorism as a war against Islamic extremism. Carr says such an approach tells Muslims that we are in "a war against Islam itself." But how do we distinguish between peaceful Muslims and the Islamic extremists who want to kill all of the infidels (non-Muslims), beginning with Americans? That's the really tough question.
Some Islamic scholars are taking a more modern, enlightened look at the teachings of the Koran, which can be interpreted to promise that Muslim martyrs will go to paradise, where they will be greeted by 72 black-eyed virgins. This theory provides a powerful incentive for the Islamic terrorists who are killing our troops and innocent civilians in Iraq. But according to New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, "a growing body of scholarship on the Koran points to a less sensual paradise and, more important, may offer a step away from fundamentalism and toward a reawakening of the Islamic world."
Although one noted Islamic scholar wrote that "sex in paradise is pretty much continual and so glorious that 'were you to experience it in this world you would faint,'" others aren't so sure. "For example," Kristof writes, "the Koran says martyrs going to heaven will get 'hur,' and the word was taken by early scholars to mean 'virgins' ... but in Aramic hur meant 'white' and was commonly used to mean 'white grapes.'"
"Some martys arriving in paradise may regard a bunch of grapes as a letdown," the columnist adds, "but the scholar who pioneered this pathbreaking research ... noted that grapes made more sense ... because contemporary accounts have paradise abounding with fruit, especially white grapes."
"The world has a huge stake in seeing the Islamic world get on its feet again," Kristof concludes. "The obstacle isn't the Koran or Islam, but fundamentalism, and I hope this scholarship is a sign of an Islamic Reformation - and that future (al-Qaida) recruits will be promised not 72 black-eyed virgins, but just a plateful of grapes." Me too, Nick, because Muslim terrorists would be far less motivated if their reward was a bunch of grapes instead of 72 virgins - except for those who are addicted to grapes.
But seriously, Islamic extremism is a life-and-death issue. Jason Burke, the author of a book on al-Qaida, has written that "although Islamic hard-liners long to return to an idealized seventh-century existence, they have little compunction about embracing the tools that modernity provides," such as videocassettes and the Internet. Burke believes the Saudi royal family made a big mistake in the late 1970s by striking a deal with religious fundamentalists that gave "Wahhabi clerics more influence at home and a mandate to expand their ideology abroad." As a result, he observed, Saudi contributions have "funded the massive expansion of madrasas (Islamic schools) that indoctrinate young students with virulent, anti-Western dogma." We even have a few such schools in the U.S. although the Bush administration keeps insisting that the Saudis are allies in the War Against Terrorism.
Another Islamic specialist, Grenville Byford of Harvard University's Caspian Studies Program, contends that "words may be more dangerous than bombs" in the psychological battle between the West and militant Islam. Writing in the moderate Washington Monthly, Byford says that although "Christians and Muslims have been butting heads for 1,400 years ... one weapon has remained the same: words of evil intent that are designed to bind 'us' together in self-righteousness by demeaning 'them.'" For example, Osama bin Laden refers to us as modern "crusaders" while President Bush labels bin Laden and his followers as "evil-doers."
I've noted repeatedly that we've been less prepared to wage an effective war of words with Islamic extremists following the Clinton administration's ill-advised 1999 decision to dismantle our government's "public diplomacy" apparatus, the U.S. Information Agency (USIA). As a result, our response to Islamic fundamentalist propaganda in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East has been weak and disorganized - not exactly a recipe for diplomatic success in an increasingly volatile world.
Guy W. Farmer, a semi-retired journalist and former U.S. diplomat, resides in Carson City.
