A God Who Hates (18 page)

The war on terrorism has to start by protecting Muslim children from teachings that turn them into ogres. Let’s give this a bit of thought: The fact that an eight-year-old boy sees right and wrong in these terms is a problem that requires consideration. As far as that boy is concerned, a woman who walks down the street without a head covering is no more worthy of respect than a dog found wandering off the leash. This boy does not need to know anything about the woman, nor does the fact that she is an outstanding medical student concern him as he passes judgment on her and pronounces her a prostitute until she covers her head. The fact that this boy is utterly incapable of any sense of guilt about what he is doing to a small bird is another problem that should arouse our concern.

Muhammad Atta did not become a terrorist overnight. He did not come out of nowhere, nor was he born under a gooseberry bush. When he was eight years old he may well have plucked a little bird’s feathers with no sense of guilt and his assumptions regarding a woman without a hijab were no more rational than the small boy’s snap judgment of me. He was born into a society whose ethics, teachings, and culture he internalized. In his very early years he must have read the Koranic verse that says: “The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides” (5:33). A boy who learns that God cuts off people’s hands and feet from opposite sides will not hesitate to pluck a live bird and will be capable, when he grows up, of hijacking a plane carrying “unbelievers” or attacking a tower full of those “unbelievers.” That boy will internalize his God and will one day himself become that God. Unfortunately, this indoctrination of the young is spreading.

About two years ago the mosque in Anaheim, Orange County, California, held a children’s Koran-memorizing competition, with prizes for the winners. I was stunned. The American government exposes its troops to danger in Iraq and Afghanistan on the grounds of combating terrorism, yet increasingly both the government of the United Sates and the American people turn a blind eye to the fact that American children are imbibing terrorism right here at home. A few weeks after the September terrorist attacks, an Islamic center in Los Angeles contributed a set of books entitled
The Meaning of the Holy Qur’an
to the Los Angeles United School District; however, after an urgent meeting between local Jewish and Muslim leaders, the books were withdrawn from the schools and returned to the Islamic center because some of the teachings they contained offended members of other religious denominations. The
Los Angeles Times
reported the story on February 12, 2002, in an article entitled, “New Version Will Replace Pulled Koran.”

The article mentions that Mr. Dafer Dakhil, head of the Omar Ibn Al Khattab Foundation, e-mailed a reaction to the
Times,
in which he wrote: “The purpose of our gift was to promote a greater understanding of Islam and Muslims at a time when misconceptions and interest about Islam and Muslims are at a peak, and to provide educators and students and opportunity to use Quran alongside the Bible and scriptures of other faiths.” Mr. Dakhil had already apologized as follows: “We didn’t mean to hurt the feeling or cause discomfort to members of other faiths.” Salam Al-Marayati, spokesman for the Muslim Public Affairs Council, explained: “In the interest of good faith and goodwill and being sensitive to people’s concerns we agreed that the books should not be used.” According to the
Los Angeles Times
article, “Mr. Al-Marayati and other Muslims at the meeting agreed to work with the school officials to find another version of the Quran as soon as possible.”

Then, as now, I am filled with questions about what happened: What other version of the Koran do they mean? How would Mr. Al-Marayati interpret for us in his new version the Koranic verse quoted on page 148? Would he tell our children that this verse is no longer applicable in the present day? Ever since then I have followed the news closely, but I have never heard that Mr. Al-Marayati has managed to come up with a different version. Nor do I know how long he meant when he said “as soon as possible.” The article says that the meeting took place behind closed doors. Why did the debate not take place publicly? Has Mr. Al-Marayati explained to all Muslims, both here and in Muslim countries, the actual reasons why that version of the book was withdrawn from Los Angeles schools, and has he tried to have it removed from schools throughout the world? What is morally unacceptable in Los Angeles should be morally unacceptable elsewhere, even throughout the Middle East, as morality does not vary with time or place. Why did Mr. Al-Marayati withdraw the book from schools in Los Angeles while allowing others to distribute it as a prize to Muslim children who excelled at memorizing it at the Islamic school affiliated to the mosque in Anaheim?

This is not the only incident, unfortunately, of a Muslim saying one thing to an English-speaking audience and something else entirely to an Arabic-speaking one. In the wake of the September 11th attack, a study event was held at which the main—and only—speaker was a public speaker from the Muslim community. After he had finished speaking, those present began to ask questions, and I asked him: “Doctor, do you believe that the Islamic books we have will contribute to the creation of a peaceable and nonviolent generation?” The speaker was well aware of who I was and of my contributions; he, therefore, replied: “Absolutely not!” implying that Islamic books need to be altered or looked at more carefully. However, when asked by a publisher of a Los Angeles Arabic-language newspaper if it would be okay to quote his answers word for word, he objected. I heard him say, “No, don’t do that, but I have no objection to your writing, ‘some of these books require re-examination.’ “ The publisher tried to get the speaker’s agreement before printing his views, because deep down he realized that what the speaker had said in a private forum was different from what he was prepared to say publicly.

Why do countries in the West allow Muslims, who live among them, to pretend to be moderates when they speak in Western languages, but don’t criticize them for their radical Islamic views when they address the Muslim world in their native languages? This story is just the tip of an iceberg, which represents the increasing Islamization of the West and, especially, of the United States.

^*
Al-Jalalayn is one of the most significant
tafsirs
(commentary) for the study of the Koran.

ISLAM IS A
sealed flask. Its stopper allows no ventilation. In order to safeguard itself and guarantee its continued survival this ideological system holds its people in an iron grip and has created an oppressive and despotic relationship between society and the individual. The individual has no freedom within his society, and no privacy. He has to submit to his society and has been deprived of his ability to express his opinion, especially when that opinion is not the prevailing one. Islam has deprived its followers of the most basic form of freedom—the freedom to express oneself. And it has killed their desire to enjoy this freedom. In order to ensure its control over the individual, it has interfered in all aspects of his life, large and small, and has planned it out for him in every particular. It micromanages his every activity and regulates the most private moments of his life—to the point of commanding him to put his left foot before his right when he gets into the bath.
^*

Relationships between individuals within this society are organized in such as way as to make each member of it simultaneously a master and a slave. In relationships with those weaker than himself he is a master; when the other person is stronger, he is the slave. The nature of the relationship between God and Man in Islam is no different from the relationship between the ruler and his subjects, between man and wife, between father and son, and between master and slave. It is an oppressive relationship that does not permit any straying outside the boundaries of what the supreme authority has permitted. Woman is the property of Man, a child is the property of his father, a slave is the property of his master, and a laborer is the property of his employer. All of these are the property of the ruler, who governs by divine decree.

As long as the slave continues to acknowledge the rights of his master and refuses to violate their sanctity, this oppressive pecking order will survive and be perpetuated. All social institutions in Muslim society are founded on oppressive proprietary relationships. Muslim society has been a slave society since it came into being and has remained so ever since. A researcher or human-rights activist has only to live in a Muslim society to be convinced of the truth of this. If he does so, he will fully experience the nature of the relationships that create the fabric of that society. When you watch how people in Muslim society relate to one another—even in a one-on-one relationship—you see a master and a slave. Simple obser-vation will enable you to observe what takes place between the two parties.

The human mind is programmed to feel inferiority or mastery in accordance with the status of each party. When two parties meet, each of them recognizes in some imperceptible way which of them is the stronger. The weaker party discards all his cards, while the stronger takes control and begins to impose his conditions. In Muslim society very few relationships are founded upon mutual respect. Even at the level of personal friendship, each party is well aware of the other’s weaknesses and strengths. When two people meet, each recognizes by a simple process of calculation which of them is the stronger, and each will naturally incline to play the role of either the master or the slave.

I even saw the truth of this when I watched people’s behavior at social gatherings. So-and-so meets So-and-so, and each of them knows within a few minutes of meeting what the other does, who his family is, how well off he is, and what religious denomination or tribe he belongs to. This initial encounter defines how each of them will behave toward the other. However small the difference between the two parties may be, one will always dominate while the other submits, with no half measures.

A person may be a master in one relationship and a slave in another. The strength of the other party in the relationship determines which of the two roles he plays. One of my relatives used to work as an aide to a high-ranking officer in Syrian intelligence. When I went to visit him at his office I was able to observe his behavior firsthand. Within the space of several minutes I saw him play the role of supreme master and abject slave. When his telephone rang and he realized that his superior officer was on the line, he rose to his feet and signaled to the other people in his office to be quiet. He started to sweat as he said, “Yes, sir. You give the orders and I am your faithful servant. I shall carry out your orders to the letter and apprise you meticulously of all the details.” After he put down the phone he turned to a man standing at the office door and shouted at him: “Listen, you son of a whore, I’m sending you on an assignment, and you’ll carry it out to the letter. If you don’t, it’ll be a black day for you!” The man replied, “Yes sir! You give the orders and I am your faithful servant.” While one might imagine such an incident taking place in an intelligence apparatus anywhere in the world, it really does embody the reality of Muslim societies. Anyone who reads Muslim history as related by Arab sources becomes aware of the oppressive nature of relationships between any two parties within that society.

In the months following the American army’s entry into Iraq I followed news reports in both the American and Arabic press. In one of the reports on the situation in Iraq I read an interview in the
Los Angeles Times
with an American soldier. “I can’t understand the Iraqis at all,” he said in the article. “People come to apply for a job. I do my best to help them stand in line, but they crowd round in a disorganized manner and won’t follow instructions. But when an Iraqi soldier comes along and hits them with his stick, they wait their turn properly. I can’t understand the way they think! The only thing they seem to understand is the use of force.” Yes, indeed, every interaction requires a strong party and a weak one to regulate the relationship.

When you speak calmly to a Muslim, he perceives you as being weak. The American saying “speak softly and carry a big stick,” is, unfortunately, of no use when dealing with Muslims. It would be more appropriate to say (until we can change this way of thinking), “speak forcefully and carry a big stick”; otherwise you will be the weaker party and the loser. Democracy cannot spread in societies like these until the people who live in them have been reeducated, for they cannot function unless they are playing the role of the master or the slave. People in these societies, who are always prepared to assume one role or the other, have to learn how to function as human beings without having to enslave themselves or anybody else. They have to learn that in a proper relationship each party respects the other, recognizes the other’s rights and responsibilities, refrains from infringing upon the other’s rights, and does not try to avoid the claims of mutual responsibility.

Muhammad, to impose his authority, sowed unease in the hearts of his followers by linking obedience to God with obedience to himself. Then he added a third party to this “holy duality” in the form of the ruler, through whom he could control the rest of his flock.

Muhammad understood that the ruler was the link between himself and the populace, and so concentrated on the need to obey the ruler, saying in a hadith: “Whosoever obeys me obeys God, and he who obeys my emir obeys me. Whosoever disobeys me disobeys God, and he who disobeys my emir disobeys me.” In confirmation of this, a verse rolled down from the moun-taintop, as follows: “Obey Allah and the Apostle and those in authority among you” (4:59) “Those in authority among you” means, according to works of Koranic exegesis, “your rulers.”