My article several weeks ago entitled “Why Do They Hate Us” generated quite a bit more e-mail than usual. Some of it sparked interesting discussions, such as this one with a reader named Daniel Rhodes:

Evan,

I found your article titled ‘Why do they Hate Us?’ rather simplistic and superficial in its analysis. I think that hate is too strong a word to be used in this context, although for the misinformed it certainly appears as such.

Historically, Islamists are not so concerned about what the West does in its own right, just as long as it does not interfere with their ability to carry out their own religious practices. What we see as hate is simply a reaction to the last century where the West (mostly European countries) have made interventions that have substantially changed interrelations within and among Middle Eastern countries.

In addition, much of the extremism which the US claims to be aimed towards them is actually a reaction to change from within Islam (liberal vs traditional forces), rather than Islam reacting to outside forces (Saudi Arabia is a good example). Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda are more or less freak occurrences in these Islamic movements and contrary to what the Bush administration might want the public to believe, the US is probably not the central target for radical and violent Islamists. I would argue that Middle Eastern countries are far more vulnerable to terrorist attacks by violent Islamic movements, one reason why these countries are so oppressive.

Best,
Daniel Rhodes

I responded:

Daniel,

If the Jihadists just want to be left alone, and just want to carry out their own religious practices, then what accounts for the Cartoon Riots? To deny that there is a cultural clash, and that our difficulties with Islamists stems mostly from foreign policy issues, seems to be wishful western thinking. We’re so proudly multicultural and accepting of everything that we really can’t imagine people could possibly want to kill us because of our open culture. To westerners, everything must have a rational explanation, so the explanation that fits our view of the conflict is foreign policy. Because if we view it in the realm of the geopolitical—rather than the geocultural—we can relate to and understand their complaints better. Political clashes we get. Cultural ones we don’t.

I don’t deny that foreign policy differences account for some of the turbulence. But I also think that denying the cultural element is simplistic and superficial. As is denying the fact that the reaction to the cartoons shows a desire on the part of the rioting Islamists to have the entire globe under the thumb of Sharia law. After all, if those cartoons can’t be published in Western Europe without people getting killed because of it, then Western Europe is effectively being governed by Sharia law.

Have you seen some of the signs that were held by Islamist protesters in London during the cartoon controversy? The Jihadists are very clear in telling us what their gripes are, but we as a society don’t believe them because we simply can’t fathom the possibility that people want to kill us because we’re too tolerant. That doesn’t make sense to us.

But they are quite explicit in telling us what kind of world they want. Why won’t we listen?

Thanks for writing,
Evan

P.S. I agree that Middle Eastern nations are vulnerable, but not for the same reasons you cite. Some Jihadists believe they need a nation state, a parcel of land from which to begin rebuilding the Caliphate. These Islamists also view regimes like the Saudis as sell-outs for being too close to the West. Meanwhile, the House of Saud has been sowing its own demise by incubating and encouraging the spread of the Wahabbist movement, the very movement is turning against the Saudi royal family. Ironically, they are vulnerable only because their own propaganda has been so successful.

Daniel wrote back again:

Evan,

Thanks for the response. Don’t always be swayed by the things you see in protests (as I recall, you did a video a few years ago on how ridiculous some protesters are).

As for the cartoon riots, that was about as irrational as it gets, although it seems like it was incited rather than spontaneous — Europe has had many problems in integrating Muslims into its society and there is a lot of abuse and racism which occurs that is much more deserving of attention. There is a very good book called ‘Good Muslim, Bad Muslim’ by Mahmood Mamdani which addresses this culture war idea.

In response to your points about bin Laden, Saudi Arabia, etc.: Most of the really vehement Islamists that come out of Saudi Arabia and other countries have been forcefully kicked out because they are too radical, and they wind up in places like the UK where they continue to preach. Bin Laden was one of the expelled people.

I doubt a lot of the sympathy that bin Laden gets is from people who necessarily like his violent means, it’s probably from people who are more interested in his religious doctrine (or at least the principle of creating a more pure Islamic society) and from those who like a person who stands up to the West (look at Nassar or maybe even Saddam Hussein during the first Gulf War; these feelings of needing to stand up to the West go back to the Ottoman Empire and problems with capitulations to Europe).

On your point about the Saudi Wahabbi movement, this is incorrect. The Saudis and the Wahabbists should essentially be seen as one, and this is the basis of Saudi political and religious legitimacy to the people. The last thing they would want to do, if they wish to stay in power, is stop promoting Islam.

However, with oil and the need for modernization, some principles have needed to be watered down, and that has of course threatened its religious base both as the protector of the faith and likewise its political legitimacy (this is where the Islamist threat arises within Saudi Arabia). I would agree that the oppression, as we see it, predated the Islamic movements, although the Islamic movements greatly exacerbated it. Looking at oppression in the Middle East through a western lens can be problematic sometimes given the differing bases of power and legitimacy.

Best,
Daniel Rhodes

I guess Daniel and I will have to agree to disagree. He believes geopolitics is the overriding source of the tension between the Muslim world and the West. I believe cultural differences are the culprit.

In the days since my e-mail exchange with Daniel, The New York Times reported on a survey that backs up my contention rather strongly. The Gallup Organization conducted “more than 8,000 face-to-face interviews [...] in eight predominantly Muslim countries”:

The most frequent response to the question, “What do you admire least about the West?” was the general perception of moral decay, promiscuity and pornography that pollsters called the “Hollywood image” that is regarded as degrading to women.

An overwhelming majority of the women polled in each country cited “attachment to moral and spiritual values” as the best aspect of their own societies. In Pakistan, 53 percent of the women polled said attachment to their religious beliefs was their country’s most admirable trait. Similarly, in Egypt, 59 percent of the women surveyed cited love of their religion as the best aspect.

When asked what they admired least about the West, notice that the answer had nothing to do with foreign policy. And while it is true that this study only questioned Muslim women, I would expect that those sentiments aren’t wildly different from what would be reflected in their societies as a whole. Muslim men inclined towards Jihad don’t exactly strike me as the sort of gents who lap up every ladleful of Hollywood’s steamy stew.

Now, I don’t doubt that foreign policy disputes have something to do with the Muslim world’s disdain for the West, but assuming that the differences are almost exclusively diplomatic is looking at the world through a decidedly Western lens. I can understand why: multiculturalism requires us to assume that everybody is just as accepting of cultural differences as we strive to be.

It isn’t politically correct to recognize that there are cultures where sawing people’s heads off is considered an appropriate response to an inflammatory film or cartoon. To recognize that such cultures exist requires us to make moral judgments about those cultures. It demands that we say, “You know, maybe it isn’t right to execute people in some excruciatingly grizzly fashion over mere drawings or books.” But the politically correct West is a post-moral society. We’re not allowed to judge the behavior of other cultures; multiculturalism forbids it.

The way the game is rigged, you’re a racist if you don’t adhere to the mantra that all cultures are morally equal. So if you can blame the behavior of Jihadists on Western imperialism, then you can acknowledge that behavior without judging it. You avoid being thought of a racist, and you can still be a concerned and caring multiculturalist in good standing. Political correctness requires that we always point the finger at ourselves. By definition, you can’t be politically correct and assign blame anywhere else.