Islam

Lauren McAuley

HNR 405: Islam

Professor Khan

April 22, 2007

Title Goes Here

The United States of America, since the end of World War II, has believed itself to be a world "superpower." However, at the turn of the millennium, that title seems to have outgrown its welcome. The United States, over the past fifty or so years, has placed missionary to those nations in need of a democratic government. However, while the United States may have had the best interests at heart, or even on the surface, this foreign policy needs to be "revamped" to meet the needs of the international community, if the United States is to continue playing the Superman card.

In the "War on Terror" the Untied States begins a new round of undertaking in soil untouched before, at least, in the invasive manner it has been affected by. However, instead of forcing their power onto the nations being affected, the United States should adapt their foreign policy to this region, and understand its dynamics, rather than tailoring it to be biased and therefore fueling more radical perspectives of the people. Instead, the United States has formed a biased foreign policy towards the Middle East that negatively portrays Islam, and radical Islam groups have gained support from the legitimate people who are affected by the United States foreign policy and are in need of an outlet to react to the oppression, and thus, the foreign policy of the United States has backfired. However, there is a way to develop American foreign policy to be adaptive to the principles of Islam, and therefore, the Muslim world.

The current foreign policy of the United States that has developed over the past five years is undeniably questionable. During the current administration, there is overwhelming sense of evangelicalism that has fueled the biased view of Islam (Benjamin). A radical example of this viewpoint come from remarks made by General Jerry Boykin, who told a church group that he was sure America would prevail in the struggle against Bin Laden because "my God was bigger than his." Boykin has made his viewpoints widely public, in an effort to rally support for the war in Iraq. Additionally, as Boykin is a General in the United States Army, he also serves a representative of the American foreign policy.

However, the main problem with the current United States foreign policy is not that it includes an, although not explicitly stated, religious perspective, but that the policy on the "War on Terror." The heart of this policy relies on the idea to of "fighting for peace, and taking lives in order to save more. However, this idea is suppressing the Muslim world, and driving it further away from democracy. The American foreign policy has given those who it had intended to eliminate new authority to represent the legitimate grievances of Muslims around the world, and generated a state of emergency within the Muslim world (Ghamari).

However, the original foreign policy problem actually catalyst the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, actions, which are the supposed reason for the "War on Terror." The missionary style of United States foreign policy forces other nations, for which the government is attempting to "relieve" from danger or conflict, are forced to surrender to American ideology (Eland). And although these nations may be exposes to positive aspects of American society, such as individual liberty, rule of law, and economic prosperity, it also, unfortunately, this ideology includes exposing nations to the worst traits of American culture, including materialism, militarism, and racism (Zunes). This American culture, grounded in capitalism, creates more desires and social pressures; presents an emphasis on individual choice that weakens traditional male authority; and liberal sexual attitudes. In the communal emphasis of Islam, such "individualism borders on amoral and unethical behavior" ("Resentment has fostered a violent clash of cultures").

This exposure, opposition to American individualism, and the history of the Western approach to the Middle East, has created an opportunity for militant groups to gain support and public legitimacy to oppose American supported regimes. From the time of the Crusades through the European colonial era to the ongoing bombing and sanctions against Iraq, Western Christians have killed far more Muslims than the reverse (Zunes). Given the history of the relationship between America and the Middle East, the United States government, and policy of military threat and force, punitive sanctions and retraction from the United Nations, and its support of oppositional governments result in the reaction that has been characterized of religious extremism (Zunes).

Additionally, the reform proposed by American forces it equates reform with pro-Americanism, and therefore it inhibits those who engage Muslim societies critically to submit their critique freely without the fear of having their views misappropriated. And similarly, this criticism is misconstrued to replicate opposition, which works effectively with the logic of the War on Terrorism (Ghamari). The current United States foreign policy uses the logic of terrorism, whereas intimidation and violence are considered to be effective means of political engagement (Ghamari). The current policies repress the very people on behalf of whom they profess to speak, and allow regimes of political extremism be characterized as religious extremists.

Both the United States government and the media have exaggerated these extremist groups to represent all of Islam such as Al-Qaeda, rather than revealing the majority of Muslims in the Middle East, which are considerably moderate. For example of the media's role in these exaggerations, look at the role of the press after the arrest of seventeen adolescents in Toronto, the international media identified them as " Muslim Terrorists" (Khawaja). Gwynne Dyer, a Britain-based journalist, also pointed out that:

"there is no shadowy but powerful network waging a terrorist war against the West: the whole thing is a fantasy." Europeans are well aware, of Baader-Meinhof Gang (German), Red Brigades (Italy), and Red Army (Japan), but no one calls them Christian or Buddhist terrorists. Why? Simply, because there are Christian or Buddhist, not Muslim. The "War on Terrorism" is a war against Muslims and to control their natural resources under the American Empire, and nothing else."

However, the expansion of radical Islamic movements throughout the Middle East and beyond is what has forced political Islam to be the primary

...