RE-THINK THE MIDDLE EAST

[Note: The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not represent the views of Re-Think the Middle East.]

Michael Lame, posted June 4, 2009

In one of the best lines in his Cairo speech, President Obama asserted that “we must say openly the things we hold in our hearts and that too often are said only behind closed doors.” In Shakespeare’s words, “shame the devil by telling truth.” Unfortunately, Obama did not proceed to tell the truth by saying what Americans hold in their hearts and say behind closed doors about Muslims and Arabs. If he had, this would have been a tough speech. He didn’t and it wasn’t.

THE U.S. AND MUSLIMS

The Administration’s premise is flawed, as is the premise of several other American initiatives regarding Muslims, such as the U.S.-Muslim Engagement Project and the Doha Compact. In his speech Obama never used the term “Muslim world” or “Islamic world”. Instead, he repeatedly employed the euphemisms of “Muslim communities” and “Muslim-majority countries”. Why is it relevant to relate to countries and communities on the basis of their religious affiliation? Should U.S. foreign policy really be directed towards Islam as such or towards addressing Muslims as Muslims? Even the term “U.S.-Muslim engagement” reveals a contextual disconnect which cannot be bridged. These are not two members of the same set.

The United States is a secular nation with a strong Judeo-Christian heritage, far more Christian than Jewish. There is no similar tradition of Islamic influence on American culture or politics. If our country has any religious complexion at all, it is Christian. Unless we promote America as a Christian country (which I hope we never do), our President should not be talking about religion in the conduct of foreign policy. Can anyone imagine a U.S. President in the 21st century giving a speech about our country’s relations with “Christian-majority countries”?

SHOWING RESPECT

We are expected to understand, respect, and show appreciation for other people’s religion, history, culture, and values. But if we criticize any component of Islam, then we are being disrespectful. By operating within those parameters, we are falling into a trap.

Of course we should show people respect, regardless of their religion. That does not mean we should show respect to their religion. Respect the person, not necessarily their beliefs, their politics, or their ideology. Part of Muslim history is bloody. Part of the religious tradition is intolerant. Part of the culture is suppressive. And some of the values do not square with western notions of civil liberties. Yes, the same can (and should) be said of Christianity and Judaism. Every religion, every culture, every nation has a dark side. The danger lies in white-washing and excusing that which is inexcusable.

The First Amendment to our Constitution states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” Any U.S. President would be well-advised to steer clear of showing undue respect for any establishment of religion, his own or anyone else’s.

George W. Bush knew very little about Islam. His pronouncements about the nature of Islam were off-base precisely because the political leader of a secular nation has no business addressing people’s religious convictions and certainly lacks the authority to speak of what a religion not his own permits or promotes.

Barack Hussein Obama apparently knows little more about Islam than did his predecessor in office, and, despite his biography, he too has no business trying to lecture the world about the nature of a religion which he professes is not his own. His grasp of the past is too insecure for him to be believable in stating that “throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.” That may or may not be the case, but the President of the United States is not the one to pose as an expert on Islamic values through the ages.

When she was Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice erred in making reference in a speech to “the Holy Quran.” It was a mistake both because America is a secular state which does not officially recognize any book as holy, and because she is a Christian. The Quran is holy only to Muslims – not to Christians, Jews, Hindus, or anyone else.

Obama just made the same mistake. It is not disrespectful to speak of “the Quran” without the believer’s adjective “holy”. The Bible is only “holy” for those who believe it is the word of God. “Peace be upon them” is a phrase used by Muslims, not by Christians or Jews. President Obama, a Christian, should not show false respect by calling something “holy” which he does not consider to be so. And if he does consider the Quran to be holy then perhaps he sees no real difference between Islam and Christianity.

In his speech he even offered himself up as a champion of Islam, claiming that he considers it part of his “responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.” Really? The last time I checked Article II of the Constitution, I did not find that in the President’s job description.

The use of the term “holy” in and of itself may be a small matter, but it reveals a larger problem. The basis for the new U.S. outreach to Muslims and Arabs – the unspoken underlying assumption – is that we Americans have screwed up, that the United States has done wrong and has offended Muslims. Therefore we need to make amends, to bend over backwards to show respect even when we don’t feel it and even when it’s not appropriate.

THE STORY WE TELL

Telling people what you think they want to hear, when you are President of the most powerful nation in the world, is a bad idea. For example, Obama spoke of the “tumultuous history” between the U.S. and Iran, specifically mentioning our role “in the overthrow of a democratically-elected Iranian government.” That is part of the story, but why do we never mention how the U.S. saved northern Iran from Soviet occupation at the end of WWII? Why accept the anti-American Iranian narrative that begins with Mossadegh and ignores our profound contribution to Iranian sovereignty and independence?

America’s version of recent relations with Arab countries should not start either with 9/11 or with the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Perhaps we should begin with the 19th century founding of the American University of Cairo and the American University of Beirut and their tremendous contribution to the intellectual development of the region, or start with our opposition to continuing the French and British mandates in the Middle East after World War II. Perhaps Obama should have started telling the story in Cairo in an unpopular way by defending our support of the 1947 U.N. partition plan and our de facto recognition of Israel in 1948.

The point is that we should tell the story from our perspective – the good, the bad, and the ugly – including our opposition to the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, including our large financial support of UNRWA, including our leadership of the Europeans to belatedly stop the killing of Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo.

As Americans, we need our story to be told, and we need our President to tell our story to people who want to hear it and to people who don’t.