A Response to the Open Letter from Sixty American Intellectuals
Dr.Safar Alhawali
WHAT WE’RE DEFENDING
A Response to the Open Letter from Sixty American Intellectuals
There is nothing worse than violating moral values such as freedom and peace, except that the elite group which has chosen itself as defenders of these values are willing instruments of despotism and violence; and nobody is worse than politicians who hurl themselves and their peoples into the flames of hostilities and wars, except for educators and academics who justify what they do. If this is the case in the land of freedom and democracy, then it is a case of inversion in the world of values, worse than the disaster of destroying a building or the killing of a few thousand people in the material world.
If sixty Soviet intellectuals in the days of Stalin gathered in support of his dictatorial methods it would have been considered a naked blemish, but in any case it would still be less evil than the gathering of sixty intellectuals from the free world to support something of that sort.
The American president’s announcement of the beginning of second phase of the so-called “war on terrorism,” coincided with the publication of the letter from sixty American academics justifying this war. Similarly, his announcement of the “axis of evil” coincided with the announcement of sixty in which they identified the evil faction which –according to them- is a threat to the entire world, and in which they claimed that the events of September 11 were an attack on freedom, which corresponded to the opening of the President’s address concerning the crisis. The address was in the language of revolutionary declarations:
“In the name of universal human morality, and fully conscious of the restrictions and requirements of just war, we support our government’s, and our society’s decision to use force of arms… with one voice we say that the victory of our nation and its allies in this war will be decisive. We fight to defend ourselves, but we also believe that we fight to defend these universal principles of human rights and human dignity, which form the best hope for humankind.”
If the World believed their claim to represent the American nation, then it would dash the greatest hopes for a nation which is considered to be a leader of the free world. However, something which provides a small glimmer of hope and gives glad tidings that human nature is still good, is that these sixty do not represent the nation on whose behalf they speak. Rather, most of them are members of the well-known movement rejected by most intellectuals and the people, and even perhaps, by some members of the American administration. Nevertheless, the sixty do not merely speak in the name of their nation, but have delegated themselves to speak in the name of followers of the World Religions (Muslims, Christians, Jews, and Hindus), claiming that a particular group is the only danger to them all, without their “free” thought allowing to warn about the extremism and violence in every culture and religion instead of singling out the first and greatest humanistic civilization in the history of the world, a civilization that spanned from the (South) China Sea in the East to the Atlantic in the West, that achieved a level of human dignity and religious freedom which shined its light on the dark West at that time which then moved toward the violence of revolution to in order to adhere to slogans which in Islamic civilization were universal rights like water and air –for all sons of man.
We assure that this letter of ours ought to be understood as a clarification of that of which these intellectuals are ignorant, or which they chose to ignore, and a reminder of that which they forgot. It is not aimed to be a critique of American values, nor is it a demonstration of the distinguishing characteristics of Islamic values –that would require a long and detailed presentation- and all without neglecting the positive and encouraging aspects of their letter which requires us, according to our ethics, to presuppose some good intention on the part of its authors or a group among them.
In actuality, the tendency to nationalism of these sixty (which is most unfortunate) goes beyond denying the status of Islamic values to dispute the values of the West itself:
“No other nation has forged its core identity –its constitution and other founding documents, as well as its basic self-understanding- so directly and explicitly on the basis of universal human values.”
When John Smith founded the Colony of Virginia in 167 he said, “Heaven and Earth have not conspired to produce a spot for human habitation better than this spot.” Thus, have four centuries passed without changing this idea of superiority.
As if the people of the West –at least- did not know that this nation was produced by a revolution against the most stable of Western democracies, arrogating to itself the slogans of those French intellectuals whose thought provided the foundation for the later French revolution, so as to found the most bloody and racist society in human history.
The modern American empire is not necessarily what was intended by its founding fathers, just as it is not fair to claim that the American people are fully satisfied with and supportful of the imperial military establishment in Washington. Rather, it is they who are the victims of a tremendous deception. Nevertheless, they are responsible (as is any free people) for what they believe and do. For this reason, it is their duty to judge the actions of this establishment according to ethics and morals, not to believe those who would disguise it in false garments of morality and ethics, provoking their tendency toward discrimination and superiority to silence their conscience.
Otherwise, they will be tricked into distancing themselves from universal values, by [the claim that] they are their first discoverers and their truest representatives, when the general feeling of the peoples from whom the Americans learned their values, tends toward the complete opposite. Thus, the danger, which currently concerns the protectors of freedom in Britain and other nations, is that their countries will abandon some of their firm, democratic values in imitation of the American example of restricting freedoms. This reversal shows that American arrogance, which is acknowledged by the sixty intellectuals, has also cast its shadow on the world of logic, and when it is the logic of the mighty which asserts itself and there is no choice for others but to submit, that is the tragedy!
Nearly two hundred years ago Hegel claimed that the end of the dialectic of history had been achieved under the shadow of the mighty Prussian emperor. Marx stole this idea and announced that the end would only come with the establishment of the Proletarian state. When Lenin established this state he made that belief the cornerstone of revolutionary thought which overran half of this planet, and at the end of the century, Professor Fukuyama (whose fingerprints are clearly seen on this open letter) seized upon the fall of the empire of the Proletariat and made the last state to be not Prussia or Russia, but America. At this point, amazingly, he agrees with the “born-again” types one of whom was Reagan (creator of the slogan “Evil Empire” which today has become the “Axis of Evil”), who believe in the coming Millennial Kingdom which they believe will begin around the year 2. It is as if this were a surprising proof for Hegel’s critics among the German and other philosophers who claim that he took his idea of the “end of history” from Christianity!
This intellectual detour to fabricate philosophical foundations for superiority over others demonstrates a skewed central attitude, which does not allow any consideration for others or their values, but it conceals this by summoning the other to belief in values of which they suppose themselves to be the creators or discoverers.
_____There is another question about the role of Professor Samuel Huntington, author of the theory of the “clash of civilizations” whose fingerprints are also clear in this letter, and who represents the other face of the crisis of American intellectuals who rejoice in the fulfillment of their prophecies, even if it comes about through the destruction of several nations of the world.
The answer in short, is that the Millennial Kingdom which the fundamentalist right in America believe in, will only be achieved through blood that will rise up for 12 miles during the slaughter of Armageddon, which the fundamentalists believe will be the decisive victory of the good, Christian West over the evil, Muslim East!
From this we may understand how both Huntington ,Fukuyama and others came to meet on the soil of the current all-out war against Islam with a group of other well-known members of the American right.
From this we may also understand the lack of signatures from Americans such as Noam Chomsky, Ramsey Clark, Paul Findley other who represent another, more just face of America to a world frightened by the somber countenance of American arrogance. Since the meeting at the “lake of blood[1]” necessarily excludes them (and necessarily excludes most Americans whom be believe are among the greatest lovers of truth and justice in the world, which has been proven by their great care to learn about Islam after the incidents of 11 September instead of drifting along with the media uproar created by the political administration through the means of the media deception unit exposed by __________, as indeed these sixty intellectuals have, unfortunately, drifted.
Not surprisingly, the events of 11 September are the last in a list of “terrorist attacks” which the sixty intellectuals cite as evidence that the just and free America (in their view) is under attack by the enemies of justice and freedom. But the strange thing (in our view and the view of every seeker of truth and justice) is the absence of the other list, or what may be called the elimination from existence of the other pan in the scales of justice, and this was not done by the leaders of the Pentagon, but by the hands of intellectuals who want to monopolize the discussion of values, or rather, to dictate values for the world which are –in their opinion- the loftiest values and fairest scales.
The Creator of the world has revealed that He has perfected its creation in justice, and that it is the duty of man to establish human life on justice also. According to this, people who do not measure with a just measure are in collision with the laws of universe, not just with the human preachers of justice. –Qur’an, chapter 55.
The truth is that the other list is too heavy for any scales no matter how large, since Hiroshima alone would fill it to overflowing, so where will we place the other examples of America’s pure and just war, such as Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf War…
Speaking of the Gulf, my conscience forces me to interrupt here in order to whisper to the consciences of the sympathetic mothers among the group such as Ms. Aird. While signing along with these three men and the others, how did you forget the noblest of feminine emotions by forgetting the two million Iraqi children devoured by diseases of the vicious biological war against Iraq? Is that not enough to make you think seriously before signing the justification for American bombing of the children and women of Afghanistan, which used weapons of mass destruction previously unknown to the world, putting thousands of them to death while they lie sick and starving, so isolated in their steep mountains that they never heard of the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, or Al-Qaeda?
Perhaps questions such as this are called for:
Why did the atomic bomb target the general hospital of Hiroshima, from there obliterating tens of thousands of people, and deforming tens of thousands of others? Why was the ‘Amariya bomb shelter in Baghdad targeted for a bombing in which 1,5 women and children were obliterated in a hell-on-earth never before seen? Why did the bombing of Kabul target the Red Cross relief warehouse, turning their food and medicine into ash before the eyes of millions of the miserable poor? If that was an accident, then what does the repetition of the same mistake show to the world of values? And if it was done on purpose, then does it have any place in the world of values?
Next, you ask, “what are we fighting for?”
We accept this question as a starting point for awakening the mind and conscience, and taking account of one’s soul, but as a prelude intended to defend immoral behavior in opposition to the conscienceof the world, the nation, and Muslims, there is no point for theoretical discussion.
The case here is not a philosophical problem, or a theological issue, these are moral and ethical values which we are able to test by going down to the real world and seeing how these values take form in Kabul and Mazar Sharif after the guns go silent, then we will know what values you were actually fighting for.
In the Gospel, Jesus said, “By their fruits you shall know them.” The American constitution, which is embodiment of American values, remained preserved like a holy relic of the middle ages until the following two amendments were enacted: the first prohibiting alcoholic drinks, and the second abrogating the prohibition. Although the second is a clear example of the defeat of values before the power of destructive lusts, that is not the point. The point is that American values in Afghanistan have been completely reversed. The conquering Crusaders have given the Afghani people the good news that alcohol and its accompanying vices are permitted. Despite the fact that it is human nature to deviate, those who responded to this type of values were a minority among the Afghani people. At the same time American values expressed themselves in tangible proof when they did everything to oppose democracy by giving power to armed gangs from among the ethnic and religious minorities with a bloody history frequently mentioned by the Americans themselves. They immediately set about destroying morals and behavior standards through the temptations of freedom, until it became clear that the government of the Taliban were of more advanced values then those who removed prohibition from the American constitution, and that the people of Afghanistan in welcoming prohibition were of a higher standard of morality and ethics than American people who rejoiced at the cancellation of prohibition, and have never since reconsidered it.
Three months were enough to end these vaporous [new] values, when the Minister of Justice of the temporary government in Kabul announced under the pressure of popular demand, that the application of the Islamic Law that the Taliban applied is unavoidable, including the punishment for drinking alcohol. Opium growers’ and dealers’ sense of the smell of American values was truer than that of many of those who fervently support those values, since they quickly proceeded to return to Afghanistan following the American occupation, anticipating a new future for their humanitarian work, and an opening of the American market which is the largest market for this plague.
Bernard Shaw made the sarcastic comment on the duplicity of Western values, “I forgive Nobel for inventing dynamite, but I don’t forgive him for the prize.” Similarly, the Afghani people may forgive the Americans for bombing the warehouses of food supplies, targeting orphanages, and their other actions in the name of the so-called “just war,” even the prisoners in the Ganjee? Fortress and in Cuba, but they will never forgive the insult to the values in which they believe and their preference of arbitrary, man-made values which are neither stable or just, and their attempt to drag them down to the lowest American values, both in war and peace.
Furthermore, the Islamic World may reluctantly come to understand the arrogance of the American administration, and its blundering and abuse, by considering it to be in the pharaonic tendency of all historic empires, but it absolutely will not accept American intellectuals teaching us Islamic values, and setting themselves up as preachers of these values simply because a very small number of Muslims did –or are accused of doing- an action that is considered only a very small part of what the American governing institutions have done in all the inhabited continents for nearly a full century, with the very important distinction that no Muslim, whether moderate or extremist, ever thought of harming America before America’s bias toward the Zionist entity and offering it every support for its terrorism and violence, and before America attacked more than one Islamic country and proceeded to classify the states as “supporters of terrorism”, and the “axis of evil” on the basis that the Muslims are at the head of the list and its target, which is what the open letter from the intellectuals came to consecrate with a philosophical consecration.
We do not claim that what the sixty wrote was a “self-exclusion?” Perhaps there is a manifestation of a twinge of conscience when values are seen to be evoked, not in the inhumanity of war, but in the military tribunals and treatment of prisoners, and the restrictions against the media and concealing of factual information from the people, such as when the CNN news network has two separate broadcasts, one for domestic consumption, and one for overseas, reminiscent of the media in Eastern Europe during the Communist era.
However, we cannot ignore the fact that we are in a situation similar to the situation of the Popes, bishops and kings of Europe during the Middle Ages who sent crusade after crusade against the Islamic East. The current Pope has apologized to the Islamic World for those wars, but we believe these intellectuals ought to be ahead of their time and present a similar apology for what the American administration is doing to the Muslims, and therefore open the door to dialogue and understanding between the two religions and two civilization. Unfortunately, they chose another path, and it may take centuries for us to hear this apology, if such values, which call for one even, exist.
The open letter contains historical and philosophical generalizations in need of a thorough examination, but we are not prepared to enter into a debate about philosophy or theology, not only because of the lack of space, but also because of our absolute conviction that we must believe in and accept as fact, all that is true and just, no matter what its source, and that we must reject all that is false and unjust, no matter where it is from. Except that the problem, which we shall consider forthwith, is that they ascribe absolute truth to the temporary historical situation of a particular nation, in a particular stage in history, calling it “universal moral principles,” which is a claim any nation can make. The result will only be to transfer wars from the battlefield to the world of values, which contradicts the apparent intention of this letter as stated in its conclusion. Unless we believe the Zionist journalist, Thomas Friedman, who clearly states that it is the cultural war which is more important to America, and that changing the social system, regime, and school curriculum is the most important part of the battle with the Islamic world. In that case, “universal values” become a means, not a goal. The reader has a right dispute this, so we will leave off this possibility and discuss the subject based on historical facts and logic.
The logical basis of this great claim is lost for a simple reason: the principle on which these universal truths are based is the principle of “natural law” and “divine law” cited in the letter. The citation of divine law here is an unprecedented interpolation. Although the maculated text of the Torah contains reference that would seem to be anthropomorphic, and despite that fact of Christian and Greek residue which hold that certain human beings have a divine nature, yet human reason must progress to the absolute rejection of such primitive, idolatrous doctrines, and believe that the Holy and Transcendent God is greater and more perfect than that, and that He has no equal or partner in His essence or attributes. We Muslims are more concerned about God’s transcendence and de-antropomorphication than with all our issues with the West or with anybody else, and we thank God that none of our feeling or lack of feeling contains any of this idolatrous residue.
It is unacceptable to rely on invoking an obscure principle like natural law whose existence is hard to prove, let alone accepting in the most complicated problem to face mankind.
Rather, historical reality bears witness that the theories which have done the worst injustice to human rights were able, and are able, to base themselves on this principle.
Ricardo, in his justification of capitalist greed which was the primary motive for the colonial conquests in human history, depended on it, as did Malthus and Bentham in forbidding charity and kind treatment of the poor in a violation of the greatest human values, more shocking than Darwin’s decision that natural law is established on the principle that life is a struggle and survival is for the fittest, which became the philosophical basis for the destructive wars and totalitarian systems of Modern Europe. As for the founding fathers of America, they only cited it due to their belief that it was the most modern theory, just as if someone today believed in the “end of history” for example. It is well known to researchers that Thomas Jefferson and those who worked with him borrowed the terminology of the Declaration of Independence from the ideas of English philosophy, especially John Locke. At that time, the idea of natural law and natural rights was in vogue. The origin of the problem for them and other social philosophers was the lack of a doctrine and law on which Western thought, which aspired to freedom from “ecclesiastical theocracy,” might build, and to which it might refer for judgment. This lack caused them to invent philosophical bases on which to build. A comparison is in order at this point, between the Islamic World possessed (beyond practical experience) a great legacy of revealed texts and explanatory legal codes which carefully define universal moral truths and provide detailed laws governing human interactions six centuries before the promulgation of what the English call “the Magna Carta. Europe did not seriously attempt to emulate Islamic Law or even borrow from it, until the Napoleonic Code of 184, that is, a generation after the Declaration of Independence of 1776.
To clarify this we will take as an example from the values that you mention, which can be summed up in two words: “freedom and equality,” two old slogans, your discussion of which, contains nothing new. Which, moreover, was not the invention of the Founders. More importantly, these two values cannot possibly be derived from the vague principle of natural law in pure logic, let alone in the real world. Similarly, a little deep thought shows that they are contradictory –not complimentary- values. Here lurks the danger, as the events which transpired after the French Revolution (the revolution which clearly exalted these two slogans in the West) clearly confirm. For this reason the world historian Toynbee says:
“Human history may be summed up as a struggle between these two opposing principles: the principle of freedom and principle of equality.”
Since man is unable to define the limits between these two opposing principles, or rather, between the freedom of each party of the branches in human relationships (governor and governed, husband and wife, one state and another, minority and majority, etc.), and since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has been able only to provoke a new debate of the problem (from its proclamation until now its interpretation has been disputed, and most totalitarian and violent systems unabashedly describe themselves as democratic, quotes such as Martin Luther King’s about the “arc of justice” is most like describing water as “water.” Similarly, the letter’s quotation of Augustine is exceeded in eloquence by the quote in Gospel of one who is better and older than Augustine, Christ –peace be upon him. But it is only an ideal for ethical guidance. For this reason, there is no alternative but for all of humanity to return to an absolute detailed, universal source, or to borrow the phrase of _______(?) p12 the leading French legist:
“It is not possible for man to legislate for man. Rather, that is possible only for an unseen absolute power beyond the power of all mankind.”
This source is found in divine revelation preserved from alteration, and this is found only in Islam, and only in Islam because it is the Faith of all the prophets, and all the divine messages to humanity. In the shade of its law, freedom, justice and equality are achieved according to all their criteria and definitions, and in its most advanced forms and practices. This is does imply the agreement between the current state of Muslims and the reality of Islam, we affirm the contrast between them. Not, by way of the open letter which differentiates between “Muslims” and “Islamicists,” but on the basis that the human soul is bound to the earth until faith raises it to heaven. We are not speaking of nationalism here, as the sixty do, but of an international religion which is more widely spread throughout the world than any other Faith. They claim that it is possible for anyone to become an American, however, the reality [of that claim] does not escape anyone. In fact, however, anyone can become a Muslim, and that is the true tie that can bind all of humankind. Islamic values are the common denominator of the positive facets of all civilizations. Not only because of the Islamic influence on most known world cultures, but because no matter how large the circle of Islam grows, it does not claim to encompass within itself all truth and justice, as many in the West may suppose (perhaps due to the errors of some Muslims in their understanding or presentation of Islam). Rather, it understands out of certitude that as one of the principles of Islamic Law states, “Wherever justice lies, there is God’s Law,” and, “Wisdom is the lost property of the Believer, wherever it may be found, he may claim it.” The greatest truth of Islam is the exclusive devotion of worship and service to God alone, without any making any partners beside Him. Yet Islamic doctrine clearly and unequivocally states that it is the religion of all prophets, and specifically the religion of Abraham, and that Muhammad –blessing and peace be upon him- is only the reformer and interpreter of the Faith of Abraham.
For this reason, Islamic jurists, and even the Orthodox Caliphs, never ceased to utilize any source no matter what its origin. Moreover, the Prophet himself –blessing and peace be upon him- accepted laws that conflicted with Arab custom derived from the practices of the Romans and Persians, as did the voluminous and detailed books of the Muslim jurists concerning war and its laws based on verses of the Qur’an, hadiths of the Prophet –blessing and peace be upon him, and practical examples from the Prophetic biography and the history of the Orthodox Caliphs whose rule was the most just ever seen in history after the rule of the prophets. The great openness of Islamic civilization went beyond the barriers in whose fetters modern civilization still stumbles. There was no racial discrimination or immigration and travel restrictions to prevent a delegation of pagan Turks from Central Asia from presenting their claim to the Caliph in Damascus against the general of the Muslim army which conquered their land. Even earlier, a Coptic Christian came to Medina to complain to the second Orthodox Caliph about his son. In both cases the judgment was in favor of the plaintiff!
It is not surprising that these and many similar cases occurred, the amazing thing is that people of that era were not surprised by them since the what they saw and heard of Islamic justice caused them to be ordinary events. In contrast, we find the that the American administration has given a stern warning to the American media not to publish the views of Mulla Muhammad ‘Umar concerning the situation. Justice demands that those who claim to uphold it allow opportunities to hear the other side. Justice is the stronger even if it is weak, and weak is the oppressor even if he is strong, even if it means holding back the huge American media arsenal for half an hour on Voice of America Radio for sake of fairness. It is a decisive proof of the weakness of the killer with which Allah strikes down tyrants no matter how mighty they may be, otherwise, why does an enormous media fear the effect on an informed public from the statement of frequently discredited person by the same media as stupid and simple-minded.
When Islamic belief opened the gate to independent inquiry and research concerning the rules of justice in any situation within the unified framework of values disciplined by the religious texts and universal principles derived from them, it set down the firm rule upon which justice between men is established, and on which the claimant bases his claim. Therefore, the law requires hearing the claim just as it grants opportunity to respond to it. Thus, humanity opened for the first time, the gate of complementarity and mutual responsibility to protect the dignity of each human being, by granting the right anyone –whoever he may be- to bring suit against anyone –whomever he may be. Not on an abstract, literary basis as is the case of international human rights organizations, but on a compulsory, enforced basis that could not be violated even by the supreme leader of all the Muslims.
Thus, Islam made the entire Islamic society something closer to a universal organization for human rig