There has been a growing need to establish an understanding of the cultural divides between western nations and Islam. This has arisen due to the conflicts that seem to be ongoing between these differing perspectives. In looking at the views of two authors, an understanding of the variety of perspectives that are at work in the Muslim world can be achieved. This can help to provide insight into the basic conflicts and why they arise. The work of these two authors, in comparison, help to frame this struggle in perspective. In doing so, a more accurate judgment regarding the causes of Muslim rage can be found.
In the essay “The Roots of Muslim Rage” by Bernard Lewis, the author discusses the fundamental connection that exists between religions and states. He demonstrates that, throughout history, religion and politics have shared a relationship, either one being subordinate to the other, or both coexisting side by side. Due to this relationship, conflicts naturally arise between the two. Both Christianity and Islam have this dichotomy present in their faith structures and the way that they view the greater world. Lewis therefore seems to be indicating that the roots of Muslim rage are the result of this fundamental disconnect between religion and government. Colonel Nicolaas J.E. van der Zee of the Royal Netherlands Army disagrees with Lewis on some basic points in his essay “The Roots of Muslim Rage Revisited”. Colonel van der Zee's article focuses, rather than on the disconnect that exists between politics and religion, about the fundamental divide that has been created between western ideologies and those of the Middle East.
Lewis looks at the Koran and the underlying influence that it has on the established doctrines of those that follow it. It is apparent that the implications of the Koran, when interpreted in specific ways, can lead to a complete rejection of any outside sources of authority. The book “recognizes one God, one universal power only.” For this reason, it is difficult for Muslims to accept the legitimacy of other forms of power that might be established. Colonel van der Zee, however, argues that Islam should not be thought of as a monolithic organization. Instead, it is a diverse and fractured religion with a variety of differing beliefs, opinions, and ideologies. Similarly to Christianity, n the modern world, “there are many interpretations of Islam and, as a consequence, many different Muslims.” These individuals speak a variety of languages and come from a multitude of diverse backgrounds. For this reason, it is difficult to conceive of Muslim rage as being the result of a cohesive ideology.
Lewis moves on to use historic arguments to express his understanding of the roots of Muslim rage. He portrays the early Muslim community as being militarized and fundamentally opposed to any outside views of God or religion. He argues that, if Islam is fundamentally based o a holy war to bring God's laws to Earth than “it follows that their opponents are fighting against God.” It is the very duty of these individuals to bring war to nonbelievers. Colonel van der Zee responds to this argument, indicating that many Christian leaders have worked to demonize the Muslim faith since the attacks on the world trade centers in 2001. These developments have had the result of portraying the Muslim faith as fundamentally aggressive in nature. He argues that “Islam is above all a spiritual journey, rather than a movement with a prescribed direction.” In this way, it is much like other religions, with personal direction that people themselves choose to take.
Lewis goes on to present a similar arguments in regards to the history of defeat that Islam has faced at the hands of western nations. He believes that, due to these defeats, Muslims in Middle Eastern countries hold a grudge against western powers due to the conflicts that can be traced back into history. He demonstrates a correlation between Europe and the United States that might not be as large of a divide to those in other countries as it seems to our cultures . The region therefore sees Europe and the U.S. as a single unified hegemony that influences other parts of the world. For this reason, Muslims believe that “the faith of Islam has been undermined and the law of Islam has been abrogated.” The sons of Europe have, in this sense, worked to sabotage the underlying doctrines of their faith. However, van der Zee insists that acceptance of diversity is an essential aspect of Islamic faith. He demonstrates that “Islam promotes brotherhood and tolerance.” There are, therefore, major distinctions between extremism and the general Islamic population.
Lewis further argues that there is an incompatibility between the values of western democracies and those of fundamentalist Islamic beliefs. He argues that there are simply too many discrepancies between the underlying belief structures of Muslims and those in other countries. He claimed that Islamic nations “defined their very identities in opposition to Europe.” There can, for this reason, be no bridging the divide between these cultures. However, Colonel van der Zee points out that there are, in fact, various cultures around the world that contain Muslim populations that exist within other political arenas. He states that “several examples of democratic Muslim counties exist.” For this reason, the idea that there is a fundamental incompatibility between Islam and other countries seems to be untrue.
American support for Israel. Lewis states that the support that the United States gave to Israel in establishing itself as a state after World War II has led to an inherent distrust of American politics. He believes that this is “certainly a factor of importance.” However, van der Zee argues that there is no evidence to suggest that a majority of Muslims think this way. He indicates that the arguments made by Lewis are the result of a “polarized western opinion about the Muslim world.” Rather than being informed about the actual positions of those in Islamic nations, thinkers such as Lewis are instead promoting an inflammatory rhetoric that challenges the open and diverse ideologies that Islamic believes have subscribed to.
Lewis comes to the ultimate conclusion that tensions between Islamic nations and others can essentially be seen as a clash of imperialist ideologies. He argues that, while there have been imperialist attitudes in both eastern and western cultures, in recent history there can be seen a profound imperialism that was intensified within the middle eastern nations. The unintended reach of western influence perceived as imperialistic power grabs could therefore be a factor in this regard. This could be seen as “ the invasion and domination of Muslim countries by non-Muslims.” These perceived threats could likely create hostilities between these groups. Van der Zee, however, indicates that there is, in fact, a growing respect for the principles of liberty and democracy that have been brought in from western cultures. He argues that “the urge for democracy is ongoing in many Islamic countries around the world.” In this sense, rather than being seen as imperialistic, western countries are seen to bring ideas of change.
In looking at the roots of Muslim rage it is evident that there are a variety of factors that could potentially lead to aggression from Islamic communities. The arguments presented by Lewis demonstrate the view that there are fundamental aspects of Islam that are simply unable to cope with influences that are brought from western culture. This has ultimately resulted in conflicts that have made the relationships between these fundamentally different societies worse. However, Colonel van der Zee indicates that there is a growing need to establish objective understanding of the implications of Islamic ideologies rather than addressing the entire faith in a uniform manner. In doing so, it is evident that there are a variety of views and opinions at work that frame the struggles between these diverse parts of the world in a different way.
Bibliography
Lewis, Bernard. The Roots of Muslim Rage. The Atlantic. 1990. 266, 3.
van der Zee, Nicolaas J.E. The Roots of Muslim Rage Revisited. United States Army War College. 2003.
