<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 5.50.4134.600" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Dear All,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>After Teun's timely reminder, I came across a text that I
recieved from [Asiapeace] and could not hold it back for myself
only. Good reading pleasure ! </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Best Regards,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Mustafa Hussain<BR>Knastebakken 151.1.<BR>DK-2750 Ballerup,
Danmark<BR>tlf. +45 44660171</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><STRONG>Search for meanings for 9/11</STRONG> <BR><STRONG>by <BR>Dr. Zahid
Shariff, Faculty Member, The Evergreen State College, Olympia, Washington
<BR></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV>The massive human tragedy of 9-11 has understandably been condemned
the<BR>world over. Killing of innocent civilians has aroused sympathy for
the<BR>victims and anger toward those who murdered them. <BR>Since that day a
massive national effort was launched to both take<BR>action and to search for
its meanings. The first included the war on<BR>terror and it does not have an
end in sight, and the second began with<BR>asking, "why do they hate us?", and
that too is unlikely to end any time<BR>soon. Sometimes the two were inevitably
mixed, not always for political<BR>or partisan reasons.<BR>The search for
meanings of 9/11 began to be framed from the very<BR>beginning in language that
was exaggerated and hyperbolic; it encouraged<BR>wild generalizations that
substituted slogans for analysis. Such an<BR>atmosphere is not only more
conducive to hysteria than calm reflection,<BR>it is also more likely, as was
the case here, to privilege some meanings<BR>and interpretations over others.
<BR>Initially, it will be recalled, the crashing of four airplanes on
that<BR>day in New York, Washington, D.C. and Pennsylvania were described
by<BR>President George Bush as an act of terror which will lead to
those<BR>responsible being brought to justice. Soon after that, he called it
an<BR>act of war. But even the characterization of terrorists' declaration
of<BR>war on America was not thought to be enough. Ratcheting the language
up<BR>further, the attack, he and virtually all the journalists, TV hosts,
and<BR>most of the analysts said, had been launched on freedom, which was
left<BR>vague and unspecified, but was closely identified with the
United<BR>States; the terrorists resented Americans for having that freedom,
it<BR>was alleged, since they did not have it themselves, and that was
why<BR>they had struck. Finally, it was civilization itself that
was<BR>identified as their real target, although that too was undefined
but<BR>presumably it was a proxy for both American cherished values
and<BR>cultivated refinement. (If words like terrorists' threat to "life"
and<BR>"humanity" have not so far been pressed into service too
frequently,<BR>they probably will be in the future.) <BR>The search for meanings
for 9/11, as it intensified, demanded not only<BR>defending the ever escalating
aspirations and explanations (threats to<BR>security, freedom, civilization) and
policy and political agendas (war,<BR>oil, elections) with which they are
linked, it also required the<BR>corresponding denigration in exaggerated ways of
those who were believed<BR>to threaten them. And that too has occurred. A new
temperament and<BR>vocabulary have emerged which facilitate the use of words
that encourage<BR>venomous denunciation: demonic, evil, violent, dangerous,
terror,<BR>suspicious, Islamic. <BR>If the terrorists are described as attacking
civilization, what does<BR>that make them? While President Bush continues to
formally urge<BR>citizens not to take out their rage against Muslims living in
the U.S.<BR>and no one in high governmental position has explicitly used the
word<BR>primitive, the implications are not so ambiguous. These words
get<BR>translated in public spaces - such as parks, airports, buses, and
movie<BR>theaters - into ugly behavior toward Muslims, those who look like
them,<BR>or those seen interacting with them. More than 300 cases of
harassment<BR>of this kind as well as those that include attacks on houses
and<BR>businesses owned or rented by Muslims, or those who resemble them,
have<BR>been reported since 9/11, and they include three murders. I recall
the<BR>words of Thomas Szasz: "In the animal kingdom, the rule is, eat or
be<BR>eaten; in the human kingdom, define or be defined." <BR>The desire to
understand why terrorists struck on 9/11 has also taken<BR>another route. It
consists of resorting to a kind of essentialization<BR>that is often vigorously
opposed in other contexts. For example, those<BR>who would never be willing to
understand the behavior of a small group<BR>in reference only to its cultural,
racial or religious characteristics,<BR>have felt perfectly comfortable in doing
just that during the last<BR>year. I don't know anyone, for instance, who has
wondered what is it<BR>about the Protestant religion, white race, or middle
class background<BR>that produces kids who go with guns to schools and start
killing other<BR>kids and their teachers. Furthermore, how often have we wanted
to<BR>connect the fact that Timothy MacVeigh was a Christian with
his<BR>terrorist attack on a federal building? That notwithstanding, the
fact<BR>that the terrorists were Muslims continues to provide
enough<BR>justification for many grown and well educated men and women to link
the<BR>terrorists' behavior with their religion. While some serious
and<BR>balanced discussion of the religion of Islam and the Muslims living in
a<BR>variety of societies has taken place during the last year, far
more<BR>frequent has been the daily Islam-bashing - in print and
electronic<BR>media, journals and books, and movies and TV shows. One of the
worst<BR>"scholarly" examples of it is Bernard Lewis's What Went Wrong?, as
was<BR>recently pointed out by Edward Said in Harper's Magazine. Instead
of<BR>opening up possibilities for new meanings and understandings of who
"we"<BR>and "they" are, another layer of beliefs about the Muslim world is
being<BR>laid, one that selectively supplies new facts to confirm the
old<BR>prejudices to define it primarily in terms of its lacks and
deficiencies<BR>and absences. All this is being done, unfortunately, in the name
of<BR>increasing awareness and reducing misunderstandings about Islam.
It<BR>appears that the need for oil and stability had only
temporarily<BR>dampened the orientalist discourse. <BR>If we are willing to
search, other meanings of 9/11 are, fortunately,<BR>readily available - in
addition, that is, to the blood-thirsty Muslims,<BR>inspired by Islam to kill
the infidels on every opportunity - even<BR>though they are not frequently
reported. Here is one example. Under<BR>the supervision of Madeleine Albright,
who was not known to be friendly<BR>toward Muslim countries when she was the
Secretary of State, the Pew<BR>Research Center and the International Herald
Tribune conducted a survey<BR>of opinion leaders in several countries. As many
as "58 percent of the<BR>foreign leaders said U.S. policies were responsible for
the attacks<BR>while only 18 percent of the U.S. opinion leaders interviewed
held that<BR>view" (Chicago Tribune, December 20, 2001). <BR>The dominant
understanding and interpretation of 9/11 gravitates toward<BR>pointing the
finger at some variant or the other of Islam (Wahabi,<BR>madrassah-based,
fundamentalist, politicized, jihad-oriented, the list<BR>goes on) and Muslim
culture - beyond the personality and resources, that<BR>is, of Osama bin Ladin.
There is another explanation too, the one that<BR>many foreign respondents
reflected in that poll. For many, including<BR>Muslims, the meaning of 9/11 is
to be found by searching not for vague<BR>clues, subtle hints, or hidden
messages, but by recalling some of the<BR>major events in the U.S. foreign
policy - from the overthrow of the<BR>democratically elected government of Iran
in 1954 to the present support<BR>of Israeli treatment of Palestinians, and a
great deal in between. That<BR>explanation holds that the bitter memories of
humiliation and<BR>exploitation of those policies provided the seeds from which
we are<BR>reaping the current harvest of terror.<BR>Since I work in an academic
setting, I could not help noticing a<BR>significant increase that has been
reported in the number of college<BR>courses being offered on Islam. The
motivations behind this development<BR>are probably laudable. I wonder, however,
about its impact. The<BR>readings and learning experiences that the faculty will
bring to such<BR>courses will certainly have some influence. It is probably safe
to say<BR>that in their course syllabi and classroom discussions, terrorism
will<BR>surface as an issue, and when tracing its roots, causes, or
origins,<BR>Islam and Muslim culture will get attention. In most cases, this
kind<BR>of learning is to be feared more often than welcomed. A more
balanced<BR>curriculum would offer as many courses on the Politics of Oil,
Middle<BR>East, American Foreign Policy, as are now being offered on Islam.
<BR>One of the cherished concepts of liberal democracy and the
American<BR>academy is pluralism. As we reflect one year later upon a
major<BR>national tragedy, it is time we apply it to our understanding of it.
As<BR>we do, I hope our search will yield a multiplicity of meanings. How
much<BR>were the terrorists inspired by some interpretation of the
Qur'an,<BR>absence of democracy in Muslim countries, envy of the American way
of<BR>life, on the one hand, and how much by the deep sense of the betrayal
of<BR>the mujahedeen - some of whom later became the Taliban - who suffered
on<BR>a massive scale (with their casualties in thousands and dislocation
of<BR>population in millions) when the United States abruptly left the
scene<BR>after the Soviets had been forced to retreat from Afghanistan,
the<BR>stationing of American troops in Saudi Arabia, and American
special<BR>relationship with Israel and its consequences for Palestinians, on
the<BR>other? After a year it is time to move beyond jingoism and
revenge,<BR>innocence and smugness. It is time to move toward an enriched,
plural,<BR>deeper search for the many meanings of what happened a year ago.
The<BR>celebrated norms of pluralism, I am hoping, will bear multiple
and<BR>contested meanings.<BR>September 11, 2002 <BR><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV></BODY></HTML>