Obama's Outreach To Muslims Won't Achieve Its Goal

By David Satter

The decision by President Obama to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay and open a dialogue with the Muslim world is unlikely to achieve its principal objective, which is to undermine the appeal of al-Qaida. The reason for this is that attacks like Sept. 11, 2001, spring from deep spiritual causes and are not the result of American political behavior.

In his interview with the Arabic television station, al Arabiya, Obama missed the moral dimension of the struggle with terrorism completely. He said that the U.S. has "not been perfect" in its dealings with the Arab world (who has?) and all too often started off by dictating.

At times, he said, we did not know all the factors that were involved in the area's conflicts. In other words, our actions have, in part, led to the hostility against us, but we are ready to improve. Why, as the victims of terrorism, it was up to us to improve was not explained.

Obama's remarks may change the image of America in the Muslim world temporarily. In the long run, however, his approach is self-defeating. First, it concedes the question of moral legitimacy and so implicitly justifies the murderous behavior that we are trying to restrain.

At the same time, by concentrating on America's image, it attaches far too much importance to the mood of the Arab street, rendering U.S. policy dependent on their judgment rather than ours. Finally, it disparages the achievements of the previous administration in strengthening American security, creating the dangerous impression that the Obama administration may not be committed to defending them.

It would have been much better if, in considering his approach to the Muslim world, Obama had taken into account the lessons of a hundred years of experience in combating totalitarianism, which show that fighting fanaticism with political concessions does not work but other methods can. Successful methods include military success and discrediting the school of thought of the fanatic at its most fundamental level.

All totalitarian movements treat their eventual triumph as inevitable. As a result, any military defeat fatally undermines their credibility. In 1983, the U.S. successfully invaded Grenada, an island of 100,000 people. The invasion was treated with ridicule by large sections of the Western public. But this was the first time that an established communist government had ever been overthrown. The communist defeat in Grenada was followed by defeats in Afghanistan and Eastern Europe and ultimately the collapse of the Soviet Union itself.

In recent months, we have witnessed major setbacks for al-Qaida in Iraq. Both the Bush administration and the terrorist leaders identified Iraq as the crucible of the world's struggle against Islamic terrorism. The apparent defeat of al-Qaida in Iraq, if it is followed up with unrelenting pressure, may trigger the same type of ideological chain reaction that doomed the Soviet Union by undermining the self confidence of the terrorists and the coherence of their alternative world.
Beside military success, defeating al-Qaida means discrediting fanaticism as a system of thought. All terrorist movements, even those that pretend to be "religious" are based on the absolutization of political goals, which become the focus of an entire moral and intellectual universe. This sanctification of politics gives terrorist groups their single-minded determination and atrocious cruelty. But it makes them vulnerable because it is unnatural and leaves them dependent on fantasies to justify their existence. The experience of Nazism and communism, the deprogramming of European terrorists and even the de-jihadization of religious extremists in Muslim countries shows that the faith of terrorists will break down when they are confronted with the falseness of their core beliefs.

Obama is trying to open a new chapter in our relations with the Muslim world. He seeks to do so, however, by pandering to that world's weaknesses rather than appealing to its strengths. There is nothing wrong with extending the hand of friendship but this should not be based on an effort to convince Muslims that the U.S. is not as bad as they think.

On the contrary, it should be done on the basis of complete frankness and the expectation that, in the final analysis, the Muslim world also has obligations to resist fanaticism and defend the benefits of civilization that we all share.

Who Are Muslims?

So, what role does religion really play in Muslims' lives? According to Gallup Polls in 2001 and 2005-2007, of countries with substantial or predominantly Muslim populations, majorities in many countries (several in the 90% range) say that religion is an important part of their daily lives. Sizable percentages rate "having an enriched religious/spiritual life" as an aspect of life that is essential, that one cannot live without. Asked what they admire most about the Islamic world, the No. 1 response from significant percentages of populations in countries as diverse as Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Indonesia is "people's sincere adherence to Islam."

Many regard religion as a primary marker of identity, a source of meaning and guidance, consolation and community, and essential to their progress. Majorities of both men and women in many predominantly Muslim countries want to see Islamic principles, Sharia, as a source of legislation. These respondents have much in common with the majority of Americans who wish to see the Bible as a source of legislation. Both groups emphasize the importance of family values and are deeply concerned about issues of social morality. In fact, what respondents in the Muslim world and a significant number of Americans say they admire least about Western civilization is an excessive libertinism in society.

Islam is not to its adherents what it might appear to outside observers: simply a restrictive shell of rules and punishments. To many Muslims, it is a spiritual mental map that offers a sense of meaning, guidance, purpose, and hope. Vast majorities of residents in predominantly Muslim countries say their lives have an important purpose (90% of Egyptians, 91% of Saudis).

The importance of religion is reinforced by what Muslims say about their traditions and customs, which also continue to play a central role in their lives. When asked, "Are there traditions and customs that are important to you, or not?" majorities in many predominantly Muslim countries say "yes": Jordan (96%), Saudi Arabia (95%), Turkey (90%), and Egypt (87%). This contrasts sharply with percentages of those answering "yes" to the same question in the United States (54%) and especially in European countries such as the United Kingdom (36%), France (20%), and Belgium (23%).

If religion is regarded by so many Muslims as a core life value, beyond the sensational images and religious rhetoric of extremists, what is this faith that has won the devotion of so many? What does it mean to be Muslim? What principles call more than a billion people, with different languages and cultures, spread all over the world?

Based on the largest and most in-depth study of its kind, Who Speaks for Islam? What a Billion Muslims Really Think presents the remarkable findings of the Gallup Poll of the Muslim world, the first ever data-based analysis of the points of view of more than 90% of the global Muslim community, spanning more than 35 nations.

An excerpt from the book Who Speaks for Islam? by John L. Esposito and Dalia Mogahed