Tweet
ZUMWALT: OBAMA MESSAGE FOR ISLAM?
James Zumwalt
Washington Times
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar /04/obama-message-for-islam/
March 4 2009
COMMENTARY:
Within the first 100 days of his term, President Barack Obama has
said he will visit the capital city of a Muslim country to deliver
a foreign policy speech breaking new ground in U.S. relations with
the Muslim world. It is a bold move that can very quickly set his
presidency on course for success, or failure.
The message he delivers will cause him to navigate some fairly
treacherous waters between democratic and Islamic values. And,
should the wrong thing be said, or the right thing left unsaid, the
new captain of our ship-of-state may find his vessel taking on water.
Mr. Obama's speech involves three considerations - audience, location
and content.
His audience is clearly defined. In descending size, it includes
Muslims firmly committed to Islam's peaceful practice; Muslims not so
firmly committed but not extremist; and Muslims firmly committed to the
extremist view seeking to rid the world of all nonbelievers. Only the
first two groups will really hear Mr. Obama's speech. It is foolish
to believe his words will give pause to extremists - committed as
they are to a world unified under but one religion and to which they
attach such hostility - to reconsider their viewpoint.
The location Mr. Obama selects for his speech will also be
important. Site selection honors should not go to an "unworthy"
Muslim state - i.e., one lacking tolerance towards nonbelievers. Thus,
Saudi Arabia, though an ally, should not be considered.
But countries where the seed of tolerance has clearly blossomed -
Muslim majority democracies such as Turkey, Indonesia or Mali,
or, perhaps, even a tolerant Muslim constitutional monarchy such
as Morocco - should be considered. The more tolerant the country
selected, the more positive is the message of tolerance toward all
religions conveyed by the leader of the Free World.
But it is the content of Mr. Obama's speech that will prove
challenging. Just as our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan know
not whether an explosive device lies on the road ahead, Mr. Obama
will deliver his speech not knowing whether something he innocently
attempts to communicate will be misunderstood, triggering an explosive
reaction. Our Muslim brothers have clearly demonstrated disdain for
criticism, triggering violence when interpreted as such. Consider
the reactions to Pope Benedict XVI's innocent historic observation
about Islam, Danish newspapers' publication of Muhammad caricatures,
furor over a report (later proven false) that a U.S. military guard
at Guantanamo flushed a Muslim prisoner's Koran down the toilet. All
provided such triggers. But, if Mr. Obama intends to say the things
that need be said in his speech, he risks an explosive reaction.
In trying to curry favor among his Muslim audience, the new president
may be giving thought to apologizing for actions undertaken by his
predecessor. But, in taking a conciliatory tone, Mr. Obama walks a
fine line. Culturally, Muslims perceive atonement as weakness. For
thousands of years, the Muslim world has not only feared, but revered,
the Sumerian "lugal" or strongman - of which Saddam Hussein was but
one in a long line.
Mr. Obama will be measured against this backdrop. As such, he should
understand any self-flagellation or "mea culpa" delivered on behalf
of America will only contribute to a perception of American weakness
by the Muslim world. (Consider Turkey's longstanding reluctance to
acknowledge responsibility for the World War I genocide of Armenians -
even passing a law prohibiting such allegations.)
Mr. Obama would do better to focus his remarks on past U.S. efforts
that saved Muslim lives and what the Western and Muslim worlds,
working together, can do in the future to improve relations, forgoing
apologies for perceived, past wrongs.
One issue, in particular, Mr. Obama must tackle in his speech
will prove difficult for fear of triggering an explosive Muslim
reaction. But, address it he must as it goes to the heart of the
conflict between Islam's believers and nonbelievers. If omitted,
or not appropriately worded, Mr. Obama's message will fail.
In 1948, United Nations member states drafted and passed with no
negative votes despite wide-ranging ideological differences between
the Western and Muslim worlds - the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights (UDHR). Even Muslim countries like Iran, Iraq, Lebanon and
Egypt supported it. The Declaration's foundation belief appears in
the first sentence of Article 1: "All human beings are born free and
equal in dignity and rights."
The Universal Declaration remained global law for more than three
decades - until Islamic extremists took power in Iran in 1979,
attacking the Declaration for representing "a secular understanding of
the Judeo-Christian tradition," unacceptable to Muslims for violating
Islamic law.
Nine years ago in June, 57 member Muslim states of the Organization
of the Islamic Conference, following Iran's lead, supported a new
definition of human rights according to Islam's Shariah law under
the 1990 Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam (CDHRI). The
Universal Declaration and the Cairo Declaration mandate human
rights coverage for groups of vastly different sizes. The Universal
Declaration extends coverage to 100 percent of the world population;
the Cairo Declaration to roughly 8 percent - i.e., male Muslims,
excluding nonbelievers and even Muslim women.
Westerners reject subordination of Muslims to nonbelievers by accepting
the Universal Declaration; therefore, why not ask Muslims to reject
subordination, as provided under the Cairo Declaration, of nonbelievers
to Muslims? Nonbelievers tolerating their own subordination under
the Cairo Declaration signal their weakness and provide no basis
upon which to build a bridge traversing the religious divide between
Islam's believers and nonbelievers.
President Obama must challenge Muslims to rejoin the fold of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, bridging this divide by
recognizing "universal" human equality. An enormously gifted speaker,
Mr. Obama must craft this message as only he can. The Muslim world
must be encouraged to open its borders to all religions.
Mr. Obama should take a page from Ronald Reagan's historic 1987 speech
challenging Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev to tear down the Wall
separating East and West Berlin, thus recognizing freedom. In similar
fashion, Mr. Obama should challenge Muslim leaders to tear down the
wall separating Islam from other world religions, thus recognizing
universal human equality.
James G. Zumwalt, a Marine veteran of the Persian Gulf and Vietnam
wars, is a contributor to The Washington Times.
James Zumwalt
Washington Times
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar /04/obama-message-for-islam/
March 4 2009
COMMENTARY:
Within the first 100 days of his term, President Barack Obama has
said he will visit the capital city of a Muslim country to deliver
a foreign policy speech breaking new ground in U.S. relations with
the Muslim world. It is a bold move that can very quickly set his
presidency on course for success, or failure.
The message he delivers will cause him to navigate some fairly
treacherous waters between democratic and Islamic values. And,
should the wrong thing be said, or the right thing left unsaid, the
new captain of our ship-of-state may find his vessel taking on water.
Mr. Obama's speech involves three considerations - audience, location
and content.
His audience is clearly defined. In descending size, it includes
Muslims firmly committed to Islam's peaceful practice; Muslims not so
firmly committed but not extremist; and Muslims firmly committed to the
extremist view seeking to rid the world of all nonbelievers. Only the
first two groups will really hear Mr. Obama's speech. It is foolish
to believe his words will give pause to extremists - committed as
they are to a world unified under but one religion and to which they
attach such hostility - to reconsider their viewpoint.
The location Mr. Obama selects for his speech will also be
important. Site selection honors should not go to an "unworthy"
Muslim state - i.e., one lacking tolerance towards nonbelievers. Thus,
Saudi Arabia, though an ally, should not be considered.
But countries where the seed of tolerance has clearly blossomed -
Muslim majority democracies such as Turkey, Indonesia or Mali,
or, perhaps, even a tolerant Muslim constitutional monarchy such
as Morocco - should be considered. The more tolerant the country
selected, the more positive is the message of tolerance toward all
religions conveyed by the leader of the Free World.
But it is the content of Mr. Obama's speech that will prove
challenging. Just as our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan know
not whether an explosive device lies on the road ahead, Mr. Obama
will deliver his speech not knowing whether something he innocently
attempts to communicate will be misunderstood, triggering an explosive
reaction. Our Muslim brothers have clearly demonstrated disdain for
criticism, triggering violence when interpreted as such. Consider
the reactions to Pope Benedict XVI's innocent historic observation
about Islam, Danish newspapers' publication of Muhammad caricatures,
furor over a report (later proven false) that a U.S. military guard
at Guantanamo flushed a Muslim prisoner's Koran down the toilet. All
provided such triggers. But, if Mr. Obama intends to say the things
that need be said in his speech, he risks an explosive reaction.
In trying to curry favor among his Muslim audience, the new president
may be giving thought to apologizing for actions undertaken by his
predecessor. But, in taking a conciliatory tone, Mr. Obama walks a
fine line. Culturally, Muslims perceive atonement as weakness. For
thousands of years, the Muslim world has not only feared, but revered,
the Sumerian "lugal" or strongman - of which Saddam Hussein was but
one in a long line.
Mr. Obama will be measured against this backdrop. As such, he should
understand any self-flagellation or "mea culpa" delivered on behalf
of America will only contribute to a perception of American weakness
by the Muslim world. (Consider Turkey's longstanding reluctance to
acknowledge responsibility for the World War I genocide of Armenians -
even passing a law prohibiting such allegations.)
Mr. Obama would do better to focus his remarks on past U.S. efforts
that saved Muslim lives and what the Western and Muslim worlds,
working together, can do in the future to improve relations, forgoing
apologies for perceived, past wrongs.
One issue, in particular, Mr. Obama must tackle in his speech
will prove difficult for fear of triggering an explosive Muslim
reaction. But, address it he must as it goes to the heart of the
conflict between Islam's believers and nonbelievers. If omitted,
or not appropriately worded, Mr. Obama's message will fail.
In 1948, United Nations member states drafted and passed with no
negative votes despite wide-ranging ideological differences between
the Western and Muslim worlds - the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights (UDHR). Even Muslim countries like Iran, Iraq, Lebanon and
Egypt supported it. The Declaration's foundation belief appears in
the first sentence of Article 1: "All human beings are born free and
equal in dignity and rights."
The Universal Declaration remained global law for more than three
decades - until Islamic extremists took power in Iran in 1979,
attacking the Declaration for representing "a secular understanding of
the Judeo-Christian tradition," unacceptable to Muslims for violating
Islamic law.
Nine years ago in June, 57 member Muslim states of the Organization
of the Islamic Conference, following Iran's lead, supported a new
definition of human rights according to Islam's Shariah law under
the 1990 Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam (CDHRI). The
Universal Declaration and the Cairo Declaration mandate human
rights coverage for groups of vastly different sizes. The Universal
Declaration extends coverage to 100 percent of the world population;
the Cairo Declaration to roughly 8 percent - i.e., male Muslims,
excluding nonbelievers and even Muslim women.
Westerners reject subordination of Muslims to nonbelievers by accepting
the Universal Declaration; therefore, why not ask Muslims to reject
subordination, as provided under the Cairo Declaration, of nonbelievers
to Muslims? Nonbelievers tolerating their own subordination under
the Cairo Declaration signal their weakness and provide no basis
upon which to build a bridge traversing the religious divide between
Islam's believers and nonbelievers.
President Obama must challenge Muslims to rejoin the fold of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, bridging this divide by
recognizing "universal" human equality. An enormously gifted speaker,
Mr. Obama must craft this message as only he can. The Muslim world
must be encouraged to open its borders to all religions.
Mr. Obama should take a page from Ronald Reagan's historic 1987 speech
challenging Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev to tear down the Wall
separating East and West Berlin, thus recognizing freedom. In similar
fashion, Mr. Obama should challenge Muslim leaders to tear down the
wall separating Islam from other world religions, thus recognizing
universal human equality.
James G. Zumwalt, a Marine veteran of the Persian Gulf and Vietnam
wars, is a contributor to The Washington Times.