Если у вас возникли сложности с курсовой, контрольной, дипломной, рефератом, отчетом по практике, научно-исследовательской и любой другой работой - мы готовы помочь.
Предоплата всего
Подписываем
http://www.ssrc.org/features/view/democracy-and-religious-extremism/
Features
Topics:
Edited transcript of an interview with John Esposito that took place at the SSRC offices on May 11, 2007 and was conducted by Pakistani journalist Huma Mustafa Beg for a documentary on Pakistan’s prospects for democracy and on the influence of religion on politics. Beg runs her own TV and video production company in Pakistan, called Serendip, which specializes in public service programming and will produce the documentary.
Democracy, democracy, democracy: That’s a constant refrain throughout the Middle East nowadays. Why is it so important?
If we look around the world, it is clear in recent years that many people want greater political participation and government accountability. I’m associated with the Gallup World Poll, and we have found in surveying Muslims across the Muslim world that the majority want broader participation, civil liberties, human rights, and other basic freedoms. That’s what is important, not whether one uses the particular term “democracy.”
If democracy such a good thing, why has the Muslim world in large part rejected it?
Only a handful of Muslim countries have heads of government who are elected by the people. Instead they have autocrats—kings, military and ex-military.
Pakistan’s military dictators claim that they were invited to rule by the opposition or by the public. Are they justified in saying that?
The military has always been a major player in Pakistan. When chaos reigns—when governments begin to fail and people feel that things are getting out of control—there may be a certain relief when the military steps in. But a fair number of military leaders who step in do so because they want to be in power.
Does this tradition of military intervention prevent democracy from taking root in Pakistan?
Military rulers do not support freedom of the press nor do they support the creation or existence of independent political parties—conditions that are necessary for democracy to grow. They support military rule, and legitimate it by saying that they are preparing the way for democratic elections. When Zia-ul-Haq came into power, he said he needed just 90 days, but he stayed for years and years and years.
Historically, why has the U.S. supported Pakistan’s military dictatorships?
One of the realities of global politics is that countries operate in what they see as their national and international interests. During the Cold War, the United States and European countries would often support dictatorships that they didn’t like because the rulers were pro-West versus pro-Soviet Union. Until very recently, neither Democratic nor Republican administrations have made much attempt to promote democracy in the Middle East or the Muslim world. There was a sense that it was in the national interest—in terms of access to oil or of support for American policy on Israel or Palestine—to support Middle Eastern dictators.
How does the global citizen tend to view this dichotomy between principle and practice?
In the Muslim world, as elsewhere, it’s viewed as a double standard. The U.S. and some European countries talk about self-determination, democracy and human rights, yet they don’t seek to uphold these values in the Muslim world or in the Middle East, only in other parts of the world. Nowadays the picture is more complicated. During its first term, the Bush administration did what no American president had done in recent memory: it recognized that America had practiced democratic exceptionalism—what others would call a double standard—in promoting democracy in some parts of the world but not in the Middle East and broader Muslim world. The administration said it was justified going into to Iraq to liberate the country and to promote democracy in the region. But, at the same time, since the American government is dealing with the war against global terrorism, it tends to lean towards authoritarian regimes. Look at American policy on Egypt, Pakistan, and Uzbekistan. We talk about trying to promote democracy, but when faced with the possibility of any kind of Islamic government coming into power, we tend to look the other way.
Is the perceived double standard a spur to violence against the United States?
Double standards exist everywhere in the world, and the reaction is not necessarily violence. There is, however, a minority of people—many of whom live in autocratic countries—who resent the fact that the U.S. gives its support, financially and militarily, to regimes that they see as autocratic, oppressive and corrupt. This sometimes leads to anti-Americanism and, in some cases, to an extreme hatred of America that spills over into violence. That’s exactly what we see happening in certain parts of the Muslim world.
During the Zia years, the U.S. contributed about $2.5 billion to support Pakistan in fighting against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. They sponsored Osama bin Laden’s Afghan jihad. How did that happen?
A major reason why the U.S. wound up supporting Zia—even though it didn’t like the coup and wanted to see democracy restored—was that Zia could present himself as a dependable ally vis-à-vis the Soviet Union and China, and for dealing with the problems in Afghanistan. Zia-ul-Haq knew how to play all of those cards. At the same time, he was implementing his own version of Islamization, which the U.S. could be seen as passively supporting.
The U.S. supported Osama bin Laden because it was at war against the Soviet Union. Many members of the U.S. Congress supported the anti-Communist mujahadin not because they were mujahadin (“freedom fighters”) but because they were fighting the Soviet Union. America felt traumatized by events in Iran, and feared the export of the Iranian revolution; yet in Afghanistan it did not have a problem with the notion of jihad because of who the enemy was.
Does the U.S. public understand how the Frankenstein of Osama bin Laden was created?
The average American, generally speaking, has not known much about the Muslim world and therefore would have no idea how Osama bin Laden came about, how and why he became radicalized, or what exactly happened during those years when a war was being fought in Afghanistan.
Do you think that Islam is compatible with the philosophy of democracy?
Islam, like all religions, is a fairly flexible phenomenon, capable of many different interpretations. In the past, Islam has been used to support emperors, caliphs, and sultans, just as Christianity was used to support the divine right of kings. Nowadays, religion is invoked in support of both autocratic and democratic systems. If Muslims so choose, they can interpret Islam and their traditions to support notions of accountability, of political participation in the selection of a leader, and of an independent judiciary.
Why can’t democracy get rooted into a Muslim nation and provide an example for other Muslim countries to follow?
Part of the problem is that democratic institutions developed out of the Western experience, and even then it took hundreds of years. During those same centuries, the Muslim world was living under European colonialism. Colonial powers were not supporting and promoting the development of democracy in their territories. When the European empires were finally dismantled and countries gained their independence, some of them had the outward trappings of democracy—a parliament and a political party system—but their leaders were primarily kings, military, and ex-military, a paradigm that has continued to this day.
Indeed, although some countries like Malaysia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Turkey have had elections, the reality is that they continue to be governed by autocratic regimes and to maintain very strong militaries. External support for these regimes makes it possible for autocrats to stay in power, to oppress their people, and to conduct surveillance. At the end of the day, you can’t expect the development of institutions and the experimentation necessary for the emergence of democracy.
At the same time, we have also seen a rise in religious extremism in many of these countries. Many in the Muslim world live between autocratic rule and religious extremism. Both seek to control and contain.
Why are more moderate Muslims allowing the extremists to define who we are? Why are we allowing terrorists to set the profile for a Muslim?
At the time of the Afghanistan war, we begin to see the development of transnational religious groups like al-Qaeda and others. Over the last 30 years, religion has become the primary source for political action, discourse, legitimacy, and mobilization in the Muslim world. (During earlier times, when Arab or Muslim nationalism held sway, those who opposed autocratic regimes did so in the name of secular ideologies such as socialism or liberalism.) These extremist religious groups feed off the grievances people have against their governments. They look at government corruption, Palestine and Israel, sanctions on Iraq (and now the occupation), Kashmir and Chechnya. All of these issues can be used to recruit people who are dissatisfied with their government and are anti-Western, because they prefer to blame the West for their problems. This is precisely the evil genius of people like Osama bin Laden.
Are these developments found only in the Muslim world, or are they more widespread?
Many parts the world have experienced a resurgence of religion not only in mainstream politics but also in militant and radical politics—though not to the same degree as we’ve seen in the Muslim world. Take India with the confrontations involving the more militant BJP; or Sri Lanka with the battle between Sinhalese and Tamil. Even though the Tamil Tigers are Marxists and secularist, when it’s convenient to mobilize the Tamil peoples, they’ll appeal to their cultural/religious background. Another good example is Israel: when convenient, religion is marshaled to legitimate Israeli claims. And Israel, too, has a problem with religious militants.
How do you compare the teachings of Islam with Islam in practice? Should precepts and reality be the same?
Religions are capable of many different interpretations. The problem occurs when the extremists, the militant religious leaders and groups, appropriate the function of religious interpretation. To give a concrete example: The Islamic term jihad has many different meanings. It can mean the struggle to be a good Muslim, to be moral, to be virtuous. It can also be used to mean defending one’s faith and community. Today, militant religious leaders are using this second meaning of jihad to justify what are in fact terrorist offensive wars. Even when extremists do that, they never say that they are engaging in an offensive or terrorist action; they always say that they are victims fighting the oppressor.
Take a secular example. If you look at Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, or democratic leaders like Churchill, Blair, Clinton, Bush, whether they are the good guys or bad guys, they have one thing in common: when they go to war, they portray themselves as fighting the oppressor. Even the bad guys of history—Hitler, Saddam Hussein—never tried to mobilize people by saying: “We are terrorists, we are going out to commit acts of atrocity.” Osama bin Laden says, “Go out and kill Jews and Christians and other Westerners but also other Muslims because they aren’t good Muslims if they don’t follow us.” He has created a world of black and white; good and evil; God and Satan; oppressor and oppressed.
Can people discern between the religion itself and the acts of the people who are using—or abusing—religion for the sake of forwarding their cause?
When Westerners turn on the TV and see Muslim people yelling “Death to America!” or “Kill Westerners!” or blowing up hospitals, or when they see Sunnis killing Shiites in the name of Islam, they look at that and think, what’s wrong with their religion? To move beyond that reaction, one has to learn more about the religion and the political contexts involved.
To take an analogous situation: Suppose you went to Northern Ireland at the height of the Troubles without knowing anything about the region or Christianity. What conclusion might you draw? You see Protestants and Catholics fighting and killing each other. Some of them may not be practicing, but they identify themselves as Protestants or Catholics. You might ask,“What is it about these Christians? Why are they going at it this way? There must be something inherent in Christianity.”
There are two sides to religion: the transcendent side, God, and what people do with their belief in God. There is a dark side, historically, to religion, which consists of people using or exploiting their religious beliefs in order to legitimate their actions.
When conflicts have occurred within Christianity, no one referred to the perpetrators as “evil Christians.” Why has Islam has been so branded?
When Christians and Jews see violence committed within their religion, their immediate tendency—even if they are no longer believers themselves—is to distinguish between the mainstream and the acts of extremists. Israelis, for example, will refer to it as “radical nationalism.” With Islam, it’s a different story. The first great encounter with Islam of contemporary times occurred 30 years ago with the Iranian revolution, with the taking of hostages and the hijackings in different parts of the Muslim world.
Another problem is that we tend not to denigrate states that are our allies. The Israelis can engage in the equivalent of carpet bombing: dropping cluster bombs and displacing 700,000 people. People might say that they’ve gone too far; but they don’t say, “This is Jewish extremism.” There is an imbalance, a double standard.
What is the role of the media in all of this?
The media has much to answer for. With regard to the war in Iraq, there have been some major TV programs recently where media people have admitted that they failed to cover the war the way they should have, or that they were incapable of doing so because of the demands of their bosses or editors, who didn’t want to upset the Bush administration.
Coverage of the Muslim world is better today. There’s a lot of good programming—there’s also an awful lot of bad programming. Remember that the American media is driven by the bottom line, by profits, by how many readers you have. It’s driven by headline events: bad news sells, violence sells, terrorism sells, and planes going down sell.
At a recent conference on this topic, we had a senior editor of Newsweek explain that what the media is primarily looking for is conflict, or a discourse contrary to the norm, which is, by nature, conflictual. In that situation, the focus will be on religious extremism.
The media also likes to cover people like Ayaan Hirsi, the Somali who became a member of the Dutch parliament, or Wafa Sultan, a Syrian-American—people who have publicly given up their religion—and then they go on to criticize Islam itself. The media treats such people as if they were spokespersons for all Muslim women.
I have been in the field close to 40 years, and for all of that time, I’ve been asked the same questions by the media: Is Islam compatible with modernization? Is Islam compatible with democracy, with violence? Why are these questions still being asked—what does it say about our learning curve? Many people still believe that there is something inherently wrong with Islam, something that makes it more prone to violence and terrorism. The belief grows out of a distorted understanding of Islam, but is also the product of a political agenda on the part of the people who keep raising these issues. In America, they tend to be neo-conservatives and/or militant Zionists, whether Jewish or Christian. They have a political agenda for wanting to make Islam, rather than extremism, the problem. If you admit that extremism is the problem, then you have to talk about root causes, which are more than just religion.
I wrote an article in the Harvard International Review called, "It s the Policy Stupid: Political Islam & U.S. Foreign Policy". I was arguing that we have to look at political policy. Religion becomes a way to legitimate what people do. Most policy is driven by political, social, and economic grievances.
Shouldn’t the West be pressured into talking about and questioning the root causes of religious extremism despite these political agendas?
This is occurring now, but the problem continues to be that people who have political agendas don’t want to admit that they got it wrong. As mentioned earlier, I’m involved in the Gallup World Poll, and have co-authored a forthcoming book with Dalia Mogahed: Who Speaks for Islam? What a Billion Muslims Think. We surveyed a billion Muslims, and the results go against conventional wisdom. It turns out that large numbers of Muslims admire America’s freedoms and want self-determination, but they feel that the West itself actually supports autocratic regimes, that the West wants to dominate and impose its own form of democracy on others. Western ideologues have been saying, “Muslims hate us because of who we are. They hate us because they hate our democracy.” So now they have to deal with the fact that this explanation was too simplistic.
Will the politicians really listen and take heed of your findings?
It’s been slow, but we’re making progress in presenting the data to a variety of audiences: think tanks, government officials, the military. Some do not want to hear what we have to say, but others are open and listening.
I did a piece with Dalia Mogahed called "What Makes a Muslim Radical?" which was published on the Internet by Foreign Policy at the end of last year. It had the most hits of any Foreign Policy article ever—well over 100,000, and people were reading the entire article.
But it’s an uphill battle because there are forces are out there—groups of political leaders and commentators both here and in Europe, academic experts who are neo-Orientalists, neo-cons, militant Likud-type Zionists—with an agenda. They are publishing all the time, and they have a lot of money behind them to distribute their publications. Someone has written a book on Islam and the Muslim world—the title of which I won’t mention because I don’t want to promote it. A particular institute with a lot of money is distributing 100,000 copies of the book to major religious leaders around the United States. We also see many negative Internet groups, like jihadwatch. They write books like The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America; I’m one of those.
In the early years, many Americans strongly supported the Bush administration in the name of fighting terrorism. Now these same people have to admit that they not only got it wrong once, but also a second time when they voted for President Bush. That will take some time.
Why is it that all of the people who subscribe to monotheistic faiths are clashing? Shouldn’t they understand each other more? Why don’t we see a bigger clash between people of religion and those without any faith?
Historically, although Christians and Muslims have much in common, they have been theological contenders from the very beginning. Both traditions believe that they receive a special covenant from God. Both have exclusivist theologies: “I’m right; you’re wrong. The way you go to heaven is to become a Muslim or a Christian.” Christianity felt that it had the new covenant, that it had established a universal mission, that revelation had stopped. But then Islam came along and said, “Just as you superseded Judaism, now we are superseding Judaism and Christianity. We have the final prophet.”
But if Islam presented a major theological challenge or threat, it also presented a challenge politically. Religious traditions are spread not just as religions but as empires. That’s how the notion of Christendom came about. Likewise, you had early caliphs who were spreading their imperial reach and legitimating their territorial claims in the name of Islam.
Fast forward. You have European colonial powers going forth to new lands not just as imperial powers but also as missionaries—the crown and the cross. This presented both a religious and a political threat to Islam.
Fast forward again. Conflicts today are very conveniently explained by saying that this is the way it always was. Muslims look back and say, “Look at the Crusades, the Inquisition. Look at what happened with the Reconquista of Andalusia. Look at European colonialism.” Christians look back and say, “Look at the early problems with Islam and its spread. Look at its challenge to Christianity. Look at its capture of Jerusalem, the threat of the Ottoman Empire.” People are able to frame issues religiously even when the primary drivers are political and economic forces.
Notably, the process of globalization has led to the resurgence of all religions in the last 30 years. First, we saw this with Islam, but there has also been a resurgence of Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Judaism. While most of it is mainstream, some of it has been extremist—launched to delegitimize the other, who is seen not just as a political threat but as a religious threat. Religion has replaced secular forms of nationalism in many parts of the world as a primary source of identity, mobilization and legitimacy.
Earlier you mentioned two sides of religion. Are the people who subscribe to the good side of religion, what you called “the transcendent,” the silent majority? Shouldn’t they be out there selling their message of peace and tolerance?
If you look at the West, a number of centers, like mine (the Prince Alwaleed Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown), have been created to promote understanding, or to look at religion in international affairs. The challenge is still the challenge within religious traditions to distinguish between and to marginalize the militants—not all of whom advocate violence by the way. Religious extremists are not necessarily violent by nature; but they feel that this is God’s plan.
One of the challenges for Muslims is how to deal not only with autocratic regimes but with the phenomenon of religious extremism. The majority of victims of Muslim extremism are the Muslims who live in the Muslim world. Often Muslims look the other way and say: “That’s a radical minority. It’s not that big in my country. We don’t have to take it seriously.”
Saudi Arabia discovered that its problems with Islamic radicals run very deep. Pakistan’s problems have been there for decades. The issue is not just the most obvious forms of terrorist theologies, but also the rivalry that has developed between Sunni and Shiite, which encourages some Muslims to think that other Muslims don’t belong in their faith. Those sorts of issues, too, need to be addressed.
Ironically, moderate Muslims seem to have found more of a space in the West. But what about those who stay in the Muslim world? How can they carve out a space?
Part of the difficulty is that autocratic rulers and authoritarian regimes enable conservative forces like the mullahs to preach a brand of ultra-conservative theology, which says that we’re surrounded by a West that wants to secularize us. The state gives the radicals space and freedom because it needs them to be on their side, for fear of being vulnerable.
In Pakistan, the government occasionally tries to implement so-called Islamic measures. Then other people come along and charge that these measures are not Islamic. But when government officials try to roll back the measures, conservative leaders will accuse them of attacking Islam.
Take someone like Benhazir Bhutto, who was seen as a well-educated, forward-looking woman. When she was in power, how much did she actually do with regard to the status of women? She realized that she would have an Islamic problem and did not want to be vulnerable. That does not allow the kind of space we’re talking about.
Many Muslim scholars and students who have come to Europe and America have found much more open space to write about these issues very freely. Ironically, they have problems back in the Muslim world where more conservative forces will accuse them of not being good Muslims, as being koofa, or deviant. That, too, is an issue.
The Red Threat has been “replaced” by the Muslim Threat. Let’s assume that everyone befriends each other for a while. Where do you see the next enemy? Is there a need for global powers to have an enemy in order to stay united?
Unfortunately, the history of the past few decades has reinforced the notion of a global enemy. As a result of the Cold War, many people have grown up in a world that encouraged them to define themselves in terms of “us” and “them,” on one side or the other. When that passed, there was a natural tendency to wonder whether the next competitor would be the EU or Japan. But then Islam quickly became the next big global threat. Both sides think: “We’re right and they’re wrong, we’re the forces of God and they are necessarily the forces of evil, and we have a moral obligation to fight those forces.”
For the next 20–30 years, it will be a matter of trying to work out the relationship between the Muslim world and the West. The issue will be with us for a long time, as well as the broader problem of global terror—which, by the way, extends beyond Muslims.
If people’s sense of history ever gets away from the need to define things in terms of us and them, it will not be in my lifetime, and probably not in yours.
Sadly, I agree with you. Thank you so much for your time.
Особенности
Topics: Темы:
Edited transcript of an interview with John Esposito that took place at the SSRC offices on May 11, 2007 and was conducted by Pakistani journalist Huma Mustafa Beg for a documentary on Pakistan's prospects for democracy and on the influence of religion on politics. Отредактированная запись интервью с Джоном Эспозито, который состоялся в отделениях SSRC на 11 мая 2007 года и была проведена пакистанский журналист Хума Мустафа бек для документального фильма о перспективах Пакистан к демократии и от влияния религии на политику. Beg runs her own TV and video production company in Pakistan, called Serendip , which specializes in public service programming and will produce the documentary. Бек бежит ее собственного теле-и видео-производственная компания в Пакистане, называется Serendip, которая специализируется на общественных программ и будет производить документальный фильм.
Democracy, democracy, democracy: That's a constant refrain throughout the Middle East nowadays. Демократия, демократия, демократия: Это постоянная воздерживаться на всем Ближнем Востоке в наши дни. Why is it so important? Почему это так важно?
If we look around the world, it is clear in recent years that many people want greater political participation and government accountability. Если мы посмотрим по всему миру, очевидно, в последние годы, что многие люди хотят большего участия в политической жизни и подотчетности правительства. I'm associated with the Gallup World Poll , and we have found in surveying Muslims across the Muslim world that the majority want broader participation, civil liberties, human rights, and other basic freedoms. Я связан с Опрос Гэллапа мир, и мы нашли в съемках мусульман во всем мусульманском мире, что большинство хотят более широкого участия, гражданских свобод, прав человека и других основных свобод. That's what is important, not whether one uses the particular term “democracy.” Вот что важно, не использует ли один конкретный термин "демократия".
If democracy such a good thing, why has the Muslim world in large part rejected it? Если демократия такая хорошая вещь, то почему в мусульманском мире в значительной степени его отменить?
Only a handful of Muslim countries have heads of government who are elected by the people. Лишь немногие из мусульманских стран главы правительства, которые избраны народом. Instead they have autocrats—kings, military and ex-military. Вместо этого они автократов-королей, военных и бывших военных.
Pakistan's military dictators claim that they were invited to rule by the opposition or by the public. Пакистанские военные диктаторы утверждают, что они были приглашены на правление или оппозиция со стороны общественности. Are they justified in saying that? Являются ли они вправе сказать, что?
The military has always been a major player in Pakistan. Военные всегда была основным игроком в Пакистане. When chaos reigns—when governments begin to fail and people feel that things are getting out of control—there may be a certain relief when the military steps in. But a fair number of military leaders who step in do so because they want to be in power. Когда-хаос, когда правительства начнут разрушаться и люди чувствуют, что дела идут из-под контроля-там может быть некоторое облегчение, когда военные дюйма шаги, но значительное количество военных лидеров, которые шаг в этом, потому что они хотят быть в сила.
Does this tradition of military intervention prevent democracy from taking root in Pakistan? Означает ли это традиция военной интервенции предотвратить демократия укорениться в Пакистане?
Military rulers do not support freedom of the press nor do they support the creation or existence of independent political parties—conditions that are necessary for democracy to grow. Военные правители не поддерживает свободу прессы и они не поддерживают создание или существование независимых политических партий в условиях, которые необходимы для демократии расти. They support military rule, and legitimate it by saying that they are preparing the way for democratic elections. Они поддерживают военного правления, и законное, говоря, что они готовят путь к демократическим выборам. When Zia-ul-Haq came into power, he said he needed just 90 days, but he stayed for years and years and years. Когда Зия-уль-Хак пришел к власти, он сказал, что необходимо всего лишь 90 дней, но он остался на годы и годы.
Historically, why has the US supported Pakistan's military dictatorships? Исторически, почему США поддерживают пакистанских военных диктатур?
One of the realities of global politics is that countries operate in what they see as their national and international interests. Одной из реалий глобальной политике является то, что страны действовать в том, что они видят, как их национальные и международные интересы. During the Cold War, the United States and European countries would often support dictatorships that they didn't like because the rulers were pro-West versus pro-Soviet Union. Until very recently, neither Democratic nor Republican administrations have made much attempt to promote democracy in the Middle East or the Muslim world. There was a sense that it was in the national interest—in terms of access to oil or of support for American policy on Israel or Palestine—to support Middle Eastern dictators. Во времена холодной войны, Соединенные Штаты и европейские страны часто поддержки диктатур, которые им не нравятся, потому что правители были про-Запада и про-Советского Союза. До недавнего времени, ни демократической, ни республиканской администрации сделали многое попытка продвижения демократии на Ближнем Востоке и в мусульманском мире. Существовал смысле, что это в национальных интересах в отношении доступа к нефти или поддержки американской политики на Израиль и Палестину к поддержке ближневосточных диктаторов.
How does the global citizen tend to view this dichotomy between principle and practice? Какой глобальный гражданин, как правило, чтобы просматривать эту дихотомию между принципами и практикой?
In the Muslim world, as elsewhere, it's viewed as a double standard. В мусульманском мире, как и везде, это рассматривается как двойной стандарт. The US and some European countries talk about self-determination, democracy and human rights, yet they don't seek to uphold these values in the Muslim world or in the Middle East, only in other parts of the world. США и некоторые европейские страны говорить о самоопределении, демократии и прав человека, однако они не стремятся отстаивать эти ценности в мусульманском мире и на Ближнем Востоке, только в других частях мира. Nowadays the picture is more complicated. В настоящее время картина является более сложным. During its first term, the Bush administration did what no American president had done in recent memory: it recognized that America had practiced democratic exceptionalism—what others would call a double standard—in promoting democracy in some parts of the world but not in the Middle East and broader Muslim world. В ходе своего первого срока администрация Буша сделала то, что ни один американский президент сделал в последнее памяти: он признал, что Америка уже практиковал демократических исключительности-то, что другие назвали бы двойные стандарты в вопросах развития демократии в некоторых частях мира, но не на Ближнем Востока и более широкого мусульманского мира. The administration said it was justified going into to Iraq to liberate the country and to promote democracy in the region. Администрация указала, что это было оправдано вдаваясь в Ирак, чтобы освободить страну и содействовать демократии в регионе. But, at the same time, since the American government is dealing with the war against global terrorism, it tends to lean towards authoritarian regimes. Но в то же время, поскольку американское правительство имеет дело с глобальной войной против терроризма, она, как правило, склоняются к авторитарным режимам. Look at American policy on Egypt, Pakistan, and Uzbekistan . Посмотрите на американскую политику в отношении Египта, Пакистана и Узбекистана. We talk about trying to promote democracy, but when faced with the possibility of any kind of Islamic government coming into power, we tend to look the other way. Мы говорим о попытках продвижения демократии, но, столкнувшись с возможностью какого-либо исламского государства прихода к власти, мы склонны смотреть в другую сторону.
Is the perceived double standard a spur to violence against the United States? Является ли воспринимается двойной стандарт стимулом к насилию против Соединенных Штатов?
Double standards exist everywhere in the world, and the reaction is not necessarily violence. Двойные стандарты существуют повсюду в мире, и реакция не обязательно насилие. There is, however, a minority of people—many of whom live in autocratic countries—who resent the fact that the US gives its support, financially and militarily, to regimes that they see as autocratic, oppressive and corrupt. Существует, однако, меньшинство людей, многие из которых живут в странах-самодержавной, которые возмущены тем, что США предоставляет свою поддержку, финансовом и военном плане, чтобы режимы, которые они рассматривают как самодержавной, репрессивной и коррумпированной. This sometimes leads to anti-Americanism and, in some cases, to an extreme hatred of America that spills over into violence. Это иногда приводит к анти-американизм, а в некоторых случаях, на крайнем ненависти к Америке, что выливается в насилие. That's exactly what we see happening in certain parts of the Muslim world. Это именно то, что мы наблюдаем в некоторых частях мусульманского мира.
During the Zia years, the US contributed about $2.5 billion to support Pakistan in fighting against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. За годы Зия, США выделило около 2,5 млрд. долл. США в поддержку Пакистану в борьбе против советского вторжения в Афганистан. They sponsored Osama bin Laden's Afghan jihad. Они финансировали афганского джихада Усамы бен Ладена. How did that happen? Как это случилось?
A major reason why the US wound up supporting Zia—even though it didn't like the coup and wanted to see democracy restored—was that Zia could present himself as a dependable ally vis-à-vis the Soviet Union and China, and for dealing with the problems in Afghanistan. Одна из основных причин, почему США попал поддержки Зия-даже если оно не нравится переворот и хочет, чтобы демократия была восстановлена-Зия, что может представлять себя в качестве надежного союзника Vis-à-VIS Советского Союза и Китая, а также для решения проблем в Афганистане. Zia-ul-Haq knew how to play all of those cards. Зия-уль-Хака знал, как играть все эти карты. At the same time, he was implementing his own version of Islamization , which the US could be seen as passively supporting. В то же время он выполняет свой вариант исламизации, которую США могли бы рассматриваться в качестве пассивной поддержки.
The US supported Osama bin Laden because it was at war against the Soviet Union. США поддержали Усаму бен Ладена, поскольку она была в войне против Советского Союза. Many members of the US Congress supported the anti-Communist mujahadin not because they were mujahadin (“freedom fighters”) but because they were fighting the Soviet Union. Многие члены Конгресса США поддержали антикоммунистическую mujahadin не потому, что они были mujahadin ( "борцами за свободу"), а потому они борются Советского Союза. America felt traumatized by events in Iran, and feared the export of the Iranian revolution; yet in Afghanistan it did not have a problem with the notion of jihad because of who the enemy was. Америка почувствовала травмированы событиями в Иране, и боялся, экспорт иранской революции, но в Афганистане это не есть проблема с понятием джихада, поскольку от того, кто враг.
Does the US public understand how the Frankenstein of Osama bin Laden was created? Ли американская общественность понимает, как была создана Франкенштейн Усамы бен Ладена?
The average American, generally speaking, has not known much about the Muslim world and therefore would have no idea how Osama bin Laden came about, how and why he became radicalized, or what exactly happened during those years when a war was being fought in Afghanistan. Средний американец, вообще говоря, не знал многое о мусульманском мире, и поэтому их не представляю, как Усама бен Ладен произошло, как и почему стала радикально он, или то, что именно происходило в те годы, когда война ведется в Афганистане .
Do you think that Islam is compatible with the philosophy of democracy? Как вы думаете, что ислам является совместимым с концепцией демократии?
Islam, like all religions, is a fairly flexible phenomenon, capable of many different interpretations. Ислам, как и все религии, является достаточно гибкой явления, способного много разных толкований. In the past, Islam has been used to support emperors, caliphs, and sultans, just as Christianity was used to support the divine right of kings . Nowadays, religion is invoked in support of both autocratic and democratic systems. В прошлом, ислам был использован для поддержки императоры, халифы, и султаны, как и христианство были использованы для поддержки божественном праве королей. В настоящее время, религия ссылаться в поддержку обоих авторитарных и демократических систем. If Muslims so choose, they can interpret Islam and their traditions to support notions of accountability, of political participation in the selection of a leader, and of an independent judiciary. Если мусульмане того пожелают, они могут интерпретации ислама и традиции поддерживать понятий подотчетности, участия в политической жизни в выборе лидеров, и независимая судебная система.
Why can't democracy get rooted into a Muslim nation and provide an example for other Muslim countries to follow? Почему нельзя получить укоренилась демократия в мусульманской нации и служить примером для других мусульманских стран для подражания?
Part of the problem is that democratic institutions developed out of the Western experience, and even then it took hundreds of years. Частью проблемы является то, что демократические институты развитыми из западного опыта, и даже тогда она приняла сотни лет. During those same centuries, the Muslim world was living under European colonialism. В те же века, в мусульманском мире жила в соответствии с европейским колониализмом. Colonial powers were not supporting and promoting the development of democracy in their territories. Колониальных держав не было поддержки и содействия развитию демократии на своих территориях. When the European empires were finally dismantled and countries gained their independence, some of them had the outward trappings of democracy—a parliament and a political party system—but their leaders were primarily kings, military, and ex-military, a paradigm that has continued to this day. Когда европейские империи были окончательно демонтированы и страны обрели независимость, некоторые из них имели внешние атрибуты демократии, парламенте и партийной системы, но их руководители в основном короли, военных и бывших военных, парадигма, которая продолжается по сей день.
Indeed, although some countries like Malaysia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Turkey have had elections, the reality is that they continue to be governed by autocratic regimes and to maintain very strong militaries. Действительно, хотя в некоторых странах, как Малайзия, Пакистан, Бангладеш и Турции, были выборы, реальность такова, что они по-прежнему регулируются авторитарные режимы, и для поддержания очень сильные вооруженные силы. External support for these regimes makes it possible for autocrats to stay in power, to oppress their people, and to conduct surveillance. Внешняя поддержка этих режимов позволяют автократам чтобы остаться у власти, чтобы угнетать свой народ и вести наблюдение. At the end of the day, you can't expect the development of institutions and the experimentation necessary for the emergence of democracy. В конце концов, вы не можете рассчитывать на развитие институтов и эксперименты необходимы для становления демократии.
At the same time, we have also seen a rise in religious extremism in many of these countries. В то же время, мы видели также ростом религиозного экстремизма, во многих из этих стран. Many in the Muslim world live between autocratic rule and religious extremism. Многие в мусульманском мире живут между самодержавной власти и религиозного экстремизма. Both seek to control and contain. Обе страны стремятся контролировать и сдерживать.
Why are more moderate Muslims allowing the extremists to define who we are? Why are we allowing terrorists to set the profile for a Muslim? Почему более умеренных мусульман экстремистами, позволяющие определить, кто мы такие? Почему мы позволило террористам установить профиль для мусульманина?
At the time of the Afghanistan war , we begin to see the development of transnational religious groups like al-Qaeda and others. Во время войны в Афганистане, мы начинаем видеть развитие транснациональных религиозных групп, таких как аль-Каиды "и других. Over the last 30 years, religion has become the primary source for political action, discourse, legitimacy, and mobilization in the Muslim world. (During earlier times, when Arab or Muslim nationalism held sway, those who opposed autocratic regimes did so in the name of secular ideologies such as socialism or liberalism.) These extremist religious groups feed off the grievances people have against their governments. За последние 30 лет, религия стала основным источником информации для политических действий, дискурс, законности и мобилизации в мусульманском мире. (В прежние времена, когда арабского или мусульманского национализма господствовала, те, кто выступает против авторитарных режимов сделали это во имя светские идеологии таких как социализм или либерализм.) Эти экстремистские религиозные группы подпитывают жалобами люди против своих правительств. They look at government corruption, Palestine and Israel, sanctions on Iraq (and now the occupation), Kashmir and Chechnya. Они смотрят на коррупции в правительстве, Палестины и Израиля, санкции в отношении Ирака (а теперь и оккупации), Кашмире и Чечне. All of these issues can be used to recruit people who are dissatisfied with their government and are anti-Western, because they prefer to blame the West for their problems. Все эти вопросы могут быть использованы для вербовать людей, которые недовольны своим правительством и анти-западных, потому что они предпочитают винить Запад за свои проблемы. This is precisely the evil genius of people like Osama bin Laden. Именно этот злой гений люди, как Усама бен Ладен.
Are these developments found only in the Muslim world, or are they more widespread? Являются ли эти события нашли только в мусульманском мире, или они более широко?
Many parts the world have experienced a resurgence of religion not only in mainstream politics but also in militant and radical politics—though not to the same degree as we've seen in the Muslim world. Во многих районах мира пережили возрождение религии не только в основной политике, но и в боевой и радикальные политики, хотя и не в такой же степени, как мы видели в мусульманском мире. Take India with the confrontations involving the more militant BJP ; or Sri Lanka with the battle between Sinhalese and Tamil . Возьмите Индию с столкновениями с участием более воинственно БДП или Шри-Ланки с битвы между сингальской и тамильской. Even though the Tamil Tigers are Marxists and secularist, when it's convenient to mobilize the Tamil peoples, they'll appeal to their cultural/religious background. Несмотря на то, Тигры освобождения Тамил Илама марксистов и светских, когда это удобно для мобилизации Тамил народов, они будут апеллировать к их культурной / религиозной принадлежности. Another good example is Israel: when convenient, religion is marshaled to legitimate Israeli claims. Другим хорошим примером является Израиль: когда удобно, религия выстраивали в законную израильские претензии. And Israel, too, has a problem with religious militants. И Израиль тоже имеет проблемы с религиозными боевиками.
How do you compare the teachings of Islam with Islam in practice? Как вы сравните учению ислама Ислам на практике? Should precepts and reality be the same? Если заповеди и реальность быть таким же?
Religions are capable of many different interpretations. Религии способны много разных толкований. The problem occurs when the extremists, the militant religious leaders and groups, appropriate the function of religious interpretation. Проблема возникает, когда экстремисты, воинствующие религиозные лидеры и группы, соответствующие функции религиозного толкования. To give a concrete example: The Islamic term jihad has many different meanings. Чтобы дать конкретный пример: Исламский джихад Термин имеет много различных значений. It can mean the struggle to be a good Muslim, to be moral, to be virtuous. Это может означать борьбу быть хорошим мусульманином, чтобы быть нравственным, чтобы быть добродетельным. It can also be used to mean defending one's faith and community. Today, militant religious leaders are using this second meaning of jihad to justify what are in fact terrorist offensive wars. Она также может быть использован для обозначения защитить свою веру и общину. Сегодня, воинствующие религиозные лидеры используют этот второй смысл джихада, чтобы оправдать то, что на самом деле террористического наступления войны. Even when extremists do that, they never say that they are engaging in an offensive or terrorist action; they always say that they are victims fighting the oppressor. Даже тогда, когда экстремисты делают, они никогда не говорят, что они участвуют в наступлении или террористические действия, они всегда говорят, что они являются жертвами борьбы с угнетателя.
Take a secular example. Возьмем пример светского. If you look at Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, or democratic leaders like Churchill, Blair, Clinton, Bush, whether they are the good guys or bad guys, they have one thing in common: when they go to war, they portray themselves as fighting the oppressor. Если посмотреть на Сталина, Муссолини, Гитлер, или демократические лидеры, как Черчилль, Блэр, Клинтон, Буш, являются ли они хорошими или плохими парнями, они имеют одну общую черту: когда они пойдут на войну, они изображают себя, как борьба с угнетателя. Even the bad guys of history—Hitler, Saddam Hussein—never tried to mobilize people by saying: “We are terrorists, we are going out to commit acts of atrocity.” Osama bin Laden says, “Go out and kill Jews and Christians and other Westerners but also other Muslims because they aren't good Muslims if they don't follow us.” He has created a world of black and white; good and evil; God and Satan; oppressor and oppressed. Даже плохие ребята истории, Гитлер, Саддам Хусейн никогда не пытались мобилизовать людей, говоря: "Мы террористы, мы выходить к совершению актов жестокости." Усама бен Ладен говорит: "Иди и убивать евреев и христиан и другие западные, но и других мусульман, поскольку они не являются хорошим мусульман, если они не следуют за нами. "Он создал целый мир черным и белым; добром и злом, Богом и Сатаной; угнетателей и угнетенных.
Can people discern between the religion itself and the acts of the people who are using—or abusing—religion for the sake of forwarding their cause? Могут ли люди различать самой религии и действия людей, которые пользуются или злоупотребляют-религию ради экспедиторских их причиной?
When Westerners turn on the TV and see Muslim people yelling “Death to America!” or “Kill Westerners!” or blowing up hospitals, or when they see Sunnis killing Shiites in the name of Islam, they look at that and think, what's wrong with their religion? Когда западные Включите телевизор и посмотрите мусульманского народа кричали "Смерть Америке!" Или "Убей Запада", или взрывы больниц, или когда они видят суннитов шииты убивают во имя ислама, они смотрят на это и думаю, что не так с их религией? To move beyond that reaction, one has to learn more about the religion and the political contexts involved. Чтобы выйти за рамки этой реакции, надо, чтобы узнать больше о религии и политическом контекстах участие.
To take an analogous situation: Suppose you went to Northern Ireland at the height of the Troubles without knowing anything about the region or Christianity. Для того, чтобы аналогичная ситуация: Предположим, что вы пошли в Северной Ирландии в разгар смуты, ничего не зная о регионе или христианство. What conclusion might you draw? Какой вывод вы можете сделать? You see Protestants and Catholics fighting and killing each other. Видишь протестантами и католиками боевых действий и убивают друг друга. Some of them may not be practicing, but they identify themselves as Protestants or Catholics. Некоторые из них не может быть практикующим, но они считают себя протестантами и католиками. You might ask,“What is it about these Christians? Вы можете спросить: "Что именно в этих христиан? Why are they going at it this way? Почему они идут на это с другой? There must be something inherent in Christianity.” Там должно быть что-то присущи христианству ".
There are two sides to religion: the transcendent side, God, and what people do with their belief in God. Есть две стороны религии: трансцендентной стороне, Бог, и что люди делают со своей верой в Бога. There is a dark side, historically, to religion, which consists of people using or exploiting their religious beliefs in order to legitimate their actions. Существует и обратная сторона медали, исторически, к религии, которая состоит из людей, использующих или использования их религиозными убеждениями, с тем чтобы их действия законными.
When conflicts have occurred within Christianity, no one referred to the perpetrators as “evil Christians.” Why has Islam has been so branded? Когда конфликты имели место в христианстве, никто не упомянул о виновных, как "злой христиан." Почему Ислам был настолько маркой?
When Christians and Jews see violence committed within their religion, their immediate tendency—even if they are no longer believers themselves—is to distinguish between the mainstream and the acts of extremists. Когда христиане и евреи сталкиваются с насилием, совершенных на их религию, их немедленное тенденцией, даже если они не сами верующие-это различие между основным и действия экстремистов. Israelis, for example, will refer to it as “radical nationalism.” With Islam, it's a different story. Израильтяне, например, будет ссылаться на него как "радикальный национализм". Исламу, это совсем другая история. The first great encounter with Islam of contemporary times occurred 30 years ago with the Iranian revolution, with the taking of hostages and the hijackings in different parts of the Muslim world. Первая большая встреча с исламом современности произошла 30 лет назад с иранской революции, захват заложников и угон в различных частях мусульманского мира.
Another problem is that we tend not to denigrate states that are our allies. The Israelis can engage in the equivalent of carpet bombing: dropping cluster bombs and displacing 700,000 people. Еще одной проблемой является то, что обычно мы не порочить государства, которые являются нашими союзниками. Израильтяне могут участвовать в эквиваленте Ковровые бомбардировки: падение кассетных бомб и вытесняя 700000 человек. People might say that they've gone too far; but they don't say, “This is Jewish extremism.” There is an imbalance, a double standard. Люди могут сказать, что они зашли слишком далеко, но они не говорят: "Это еврейский экстремизм". Существует дисбаланс, двойной стандарт.
What is the role of the media in all of this? Какова роль средств массовой информации во всем этом?
The media has much to answer for. Средства массовой информации за многое ответить. With regard to the war in Iraq, there have been some major TV programs recently where media people have admitted that they failed to cover the war the way they should have, or that they were incapable of doing so because of the demands of their bosses or editors, who didn't want to upset the Bush administration. В связи с войной в Ираке, произошли некоторые основные телевизионные программы Недавно средства массовой информации, где люди признали, что они не были охвачены войной, как они должны иметь, или что они были в состоянии сделать это из-за требования своих начальников или редакторы, которые не хотят, чтобы нарушить администрации Буша.
Coverage of the Muslim world is better today. Охват мусульманский мир лучше сегодня. There's a lot of good programming—there's also an awful lot of bad programming. Там очень много хороших программирования есть также очень много плохих программ. Remember that the American media is driven by the bottom line, by profits, by how many readers you have. Помните, что американские средства массовой информации приводится в нижней строке, прибыли, тем, насколько много читателей, у вас есть. It's driven by headline events: bad news sells, violence sells, terrorism sells, and planes going down sell. Это Движимый заголовок событий: плохие новости продает, продает насилия, терроризма продает, и самолеты Going Down продать.
At a recent conference on this topic, we had a senior editor of Newsweek explain that what the media is primarily looking for is conflict, or a discourse contrary to the norm, which is, by nature, conflictual. На недавней конференции на эту тему, нам пришлось старший редактор Newsweek объяснить то, что средства массовой информации в первую очередь ищете, конфликт, или рассуждение противоречит норме, которая, по своей природе, конфликтность. In that situation, the focus will be on religious extremism. В этой ситуации внимание будет уделено религиозным экстремизмом.
The media also likes to cover people like Ayaan Hirsi , the Somali who became a member of the Dutch parliament, or Wafa Sultan , a Syrian-American—people who have publicly given up their religion—and then they go on to criticize Islam itself. Средства массовой информации также для покрытия любит людей, как Айаан Хирси, Сомали, который стал членом голландского парламента, или Вафа Султан, сирийско-американских людям, которые публично отказались от своей религии, а потом перейти к критике самого ислама. The media treats such people as if they were spokespersons for all Muslim women. СМИ трактует такие люди, как если бы они были представителями всех мусульманских женщин.
I have been in the field close to 40 years, and for all of that time, I've been asked the same questions by the media: Is Islam compatible with modernization? Я был в области около 40 лет, и за все это время, я задал те же вопросы в средствах массовой информации: ислам совместимы с модернизацией? Is Islam compatible with democracy, with violence? Ислам совместимы с демократией, с насилием? Why are these questions still being asked—what does it say about our learning curve? Почему эти вопросы по-прежнему просят-Что можно сказать о наших обучения? Many people still believe that there is something inherently wrong with Islam, something that makes it more prone to violence and terrorism. Многие до сих пор верю, что есть нечто изначально неправильное с исламом, то, что делает его более склонны к насилию и терроризму. The belief grows out of a distorted understanding of Islam, but is also the product of a political agenda on the part of the people who keep raising these issues. Вера вырастает из искаженное понимание ислама, но также является продуктом политической повестки дня со стороны людей, которые держат поднять эти вопросы. In America, they tend to be neo-conservatives and/or militant Zionists, whether Jewish or Christian. В Америке, они, как правило, нео-консерваторов и / или боевая сионисты, будь то евреи или христиане. They have a political agenda for wanting to make Islam, rather than extremism, the problem. Они имеют политической повестке дня за желание сделать ислам, а не экстремизм, проблемы. If you admit that extremism is the problem, then you have to talk about root causes, which are more than just religion. Если вы признаете, что экстремизм является проблемой, то вам придется говорить о коренных причинах, которые больше, чем просто религия.
I wrote an article in the Harvard International Review called, "It's the Policy Stupid: Political Islam & US Foreign Policy" . Я написала статью в Гарвардском Международный журнал называется, "Все дело в политике глупо: Политический ислам & внешней политике США". I was arguing that we have to look at political policy. Я был доказывая, что мы должны посмотреть на политический курс. Religion becomes a way to legitimate what people do. Религия станет законным способом, что люди делают. Most policy is driven by political, social, and economic grievances. Большинство политику исходя из политических, социальных и экономических претензий.
Shouldn't the West be pressured into talking about and questioning the root causes of religious extremism despite these political agendas? Не следует ли Запад оказать давление на говорим о допросе и коренные причины религиозного экстремизма, несмотря на эти политические программы?
This is occurring now, but the problem continues to be that people who have political agendas don't want to admit that they got it wrong. Это происходит сейчас, но проблема по-прежнему, что люди, которые имеют политическую повестку дня, не хотят признать, что они не правы. As mentioned earlier, I'm involved in the Gallup World Poll, and have co-authored a forthcoming book with Dalia Mogahed: Who Speaks for Islam? Как упоминалось ранее, я участвую в мир Gallup Poll, и соавтор книги с предстоящим Далия Mogahed: Кто выступает за ислам? What a Billion Muslims Think . Что миллиарда мусульман думают. We surveyed a billion Muslims, and the results go against conventional wisdom. Мы провели опрос миллиарда мусульман, и результаты идти вразрез с общепринятым мнением. It turns out that large numbers of Muslims admire America's freedoms and want self-determination, but they feel that the West itself actually supports autocratic regimes, that the West wants to dominate and impose its own form of democracy on others. Оказывается, что большое количество мусульман восхищаются свободы Америки и хотят самоопределения, но они считают, что сам Запад действительно поддерживает авторитарные режимы, что Запад хочет доминировать и навязывать свою собственную форму демократии на другие. Western ideologues have been saying, “Muslims hate us because of who we are. Западные идеологи говорили, "мусульмане ненавидят нас, потому что о том, кто мы есть. They hate us because they hate our democracy.” So now they have to deal with the fact that this explanation was too simplistic. Они ненавидят нас, потому что они ненавидят нашу демократию. "Итак, теперь им приходится иметь дело с тем, что это объяснение является слишком упрощенным.
Will the politicians really listen and take heed of your findings? Будет ли политикам действительно слушать и прислушаться к вашим выводам?
It's been slow, but we're making progress in presenting the data to a variety of audiences: think tanks, government officials, the military. Это был медленный, но мы добиваемся прогресса в представлении данных для различных аудиторий: мозговые центры, правительственные чиновники, военные. Some do not want to hear what we have to say, but others are open and listening. Некоторые не хотят слышать то, что мы хотим сказать, а другие являются открытыми и слушать.
I did a piece with Dalia Mogahed called "What Makes a Muslim Radical?" which was published on the Internet by Foreign Policy at the end of last year. Я сделал целое с Далия Mogahed называется "Что делает мусульманский радикал?", Который был опубликован в Интернете по внешней политике в конце прошлого года. It had the most hits of any Foreign Policy article ever—well over 100,000, and people were reading the entire article. Он имел самое показов любой статьи Внешняя политика постоянно свыше 100000, а люди читали всю статью.
But it's an uphill battle because there are forces are out there—groups of political leaders and commentators both here and in Europe, academic experts who are neo-Orientalists, neo-cons, militant Likud-type Zionists—with an agenda. Но это тяжелая битва потому что есть силы, вне там-группы политических лидеров и комментаторов как здесь, так и в Европе, академическими экспертами, которые являются нео-востоковеды, нео-консерваторы, воинствующий Ликуд типа сионистов с повестки дня. They are publishing all the time, and they have a lot of money behind them to distribute their publications. Они выпускают все время, и они имеют много денег за их для распространения своих изданий. Someone has written a book on Islam and the Muslim world—the title of which I won't mention because I don't want to promote it. Кто-то написал книгу "Ислам и мусульманский мир-название которой я не буду говорить, потому что я не хочу, чтобы поощрять его. A particular institute with a lot of money is distributing 100,000 copies of the book to major religious leaders around the United States. Особый институт с большим количеством денег распространение 100000 экземпляров этой книги в основном религиозные лидеры во всем Соединенным Штатам. We also see many negative Internet groups, like jihadwatch . Мы также видим много негативных группами Интернета, как jihadwatch. They write books like The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America ; I'm one of those. Они пишут книги, как 101 Most Dangerous ученых в Америку, я являюсь одним из них.
In the early years, many Americans strongly supported the Bush administration in the name of fighting terrorism. В начале года многие американцы решительно поддержала администрацию Буша во имя борьбы с терроризмом. Now these same people have to admit that they not only got it wrong once, but also a second time when they voted for President Bush. Теперь эти же люди вынуждены признать, что они не только не поняли сразу, а также второй момент, когда они голосовали за президента Буша. That will take some time. Это займет некоторое время.
Why is it that all of the people who subscribe to monotheistic faiths are clashing? Почему это все люди, которые подключатся к монотеистической религии являются столкновения? Shouldn't they understand each other more? Если они не понимают друг друга больше? Why don't we see a bigger clash between people of religion and those without any faith? Почему же мы не видим больших столкновений между людьми, религиями и те, без какой-либо вере?
Historically, although Christians and Muslims have much in common, they have been theological contenders from the very beginning. Исторически, хотя христиане и мусульмане имеют много общего, они были богословские претендентов с самого начала. Both traditions believe that they receive a special covenant from God. Обе традиции считают, что они получают специальное завет с Богом. Both have exclusivist theologies: “I'm right; you're wrong. Оба исключительность теологии: "Я прав, вы ошибаетесь. The way you go to heaven is to become a Muslim or a Christian.” Christianity felt that it had the new covenant, that it had established a universal mission, that revelation had stopped. Путем ты пойдешь на небеса, чтобы стать мусульманином или христианином. "Христианство считает, что она в Новый Завет, который он создал универсальную миссию, что откровение было остановить. But then Islam came along and said, “Just as you superseded Judaism, now we are superseding Judaism and Christianity. Но тогда Ислам пришел и сказал: "Подобно тому, как вы заменили иудаизма, теперь мы заменяющее иудаизма и христианства. We have the final prophet.” Мы окончательный пророк ".
But if Islam presented a major theological challenge or threat, it also presented a challenge politically. Но если ислам представил основные богословские вызов или угроза, она также представляет собой серьезную проблему в политическом отношении. Religious traditions are spread not just as religions but as empires. Религиозные традиции распространяются не только как религию, а как империя. That's how the notion of Christendom came about. Likewise, you had early caliphs who were spreading their imperial reach and legitimating their territorial claims in the name of Islam. Вот каким образом понятие "христианский произошло. Более того, вы, рано халифов, которые распространяют свою имперскую достичь и узаконивания своих территориальных претензий во имя ислама.
Fast forward. Перемотки вперед. You have European colonial powers going forth to new lands not just as imperial powers but also as missionaries—the crown and the cross. Вы европейских колониальных держав, как выйдет на новые земли не только в качестве имперских держав, а также в качестве миссионеров-корона и крест. This presented both a religious and a political threat to Islam. Это представлено как религиозная и политическая угроза исламу.
Fast forward again. Быстро вперед. Conflicts today are very conveniently explained by saying that this is the way it always was. Современные конфликты очень удобно объяснить тем, что именно так было всегда. Muslims look back and say, “Look at the Crusades, the Inquisition. Мусульмане оглянуться назад и сказать: "Посмотрите на крестовые походы, инквизиция. Look at what happened with the Reconquista of Andalusia. Посмотрите, что произошло с Реконкиста Андалусии. Look at European colonialism.” Christians look back and say, “Look at the early problems with Islam and its spread. Посмотрите на европейский колониализм ". Христиан оглянуться назад и сказать:" Посмотрите на ранних проблем с исламом и его распространение. Look at its challenge to Christianity. Посмотрите на его вызов к христианству. Look at its capture of Jerusalem, the threat of the Ottoman Empire.” People are able to frame issues religiously even when the primary drivers are political and economic forces. Посмотрите на его захват Иерусалима, угрозы в Османской империи. "У людей есть возможность оформить эти вопросы религиозной, даже когда главной движущей силой являются политическими и экономическими силами.
Notably, the process of globalization has led to the resurgence of all religions in the last 30 years. Примечательно, что процесс глобализации привел к возрождению всех религий в последние 30 лет. First, we saw this with Islam, but there has also been a resurgence of Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Judaism. Во-первых, мы это видели в исламе, но также наблюдается возрождение христианства, индуизма, буддизма и иудаизма. While most of it is mainstream, some of it has been extremist—launched to delegitimize the other, who is seen not just as a political threat but as a religious threat. Хотя большая часть его основного, некоторые из них были экстремистски запущен с целью лишить легитимности другим, который рассматривается не только как политическая угроза, а как религиозный угрозу. Religion has replaced secular forms of nationalism in many parts of the world as a primary source of identity, mobilization and legitimacy. Религия была заменена светские формы национализма во многих частях мира, в качестве первичного источника самобытности, мобилизации и легитимность.
Earlier you mentioned two sides of religion. Ранее Вы упомянули о двух сторонах религии. Are the people who subscribe to the good side of religion, what you called “the transcendent,” the silent majority? Есть люди, которые подключатся к хорошей стороны религии, то, что вы называли "трансцендентное," молчаливое большинство? Shouldn't they be out there selling their message of peace and tolerance? Не должны ли они быть там продавать свои идеи мира и терпимости?
If you look at the West, a number of centers, like mine (the Prince Alwaleed Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown), have been created to promote understanding, or to look at religion in international affairs. Если вы посмотрите на Запад, количество центров, как и моя (Принц Аль-Валид Центра мусульманско-христианского взаимопонимания в Джорджтауне), были созданы для содействия взаимопониманию, или смотреть на религию в международных делах. The challenge is still the challenge within religious traditions to distinguish between and to marginalize the militants—not all of whom advocate violence by the way. Задача по-прежнему является задачей в рамках религиозной традиции различать и маргинализировать боевиков, не все из которых проповедует насилие, кстати. Religious extremists are not necessarily violent by nature; but they feel that this is God's plan. Религиозные экстремисты не обязательно агрессивны по природе, но они считают, что это Божий план.
One of the challenges for Muslims is how to deal not only with autocratic regimes but with the phenomenon of religious extremism. Одна из проблем для мусульман в том, как заниматься не только авторитарные режимы, но с явлением религиозного экстремизма. The majority of victims of Muslim extremism are the Muslims who live in the Muslim world. Большинство жертв мусульманского экстремизма являются мусульманами, которые живут в мусульманском мире. Often Muslims look the other way and say: “That's a radical minority. Часто мусульмане смотреть в другую сторону и сказать: "Это радикальное меньшинство. It's not that big in my country. Это не такая большая в моей стране. We don't have to take it seriously.” Мы не должны отнестись к этому серьезно ".
Saudi Arabia discovered that its problems with Islamic radicals run very deep. Саудовская Аравия обнаружил, что его проблемы с исламскими радикалами работают очень глубокий. Pakistan's problems have been there for decades. Проблем Пакистана были там на протяжении десятилетий. The issue is not just the most obvious forms of terrorist theologies, but also the rivalry that has developed between Sunni and Shiite, which encourages some Muslims to think that other Muslims don't belong in their faith. Проблема заключается не только наиболее очевидные формы террористических теологии, но и соперничества, которые сложились между суннитами и шиитами, которая поощряет Некоторые мусульмане считают, что другие мусульмане не относятся к своей вере. Those sorts of issues, too, need to be addressed. Эти рода вопросы тоже необходимо решать.
Ironically, moderate Muslims seem to have found more of a space in the West. По иронии судьбы, умеренным мусульманам, кажется, нашли больше пространства на Западе. But what about those who stay in the Muslim world? Но как насчет тех, кто остался в мусульманском мире? How can they carve out a space? Как они могут выделить какую-либо пространство?
Part of the difficulty is that autocratic rulers and authoritarian regimes enable conservative forces like the mullahs to preach a brand of ultra-conservative theology, which says that we're surrounded by a West that wants to secularize us. Отчасти трудность в том, что самодержавная правителей и авторитарные режимы позволят консервативные силы, как на проповедь муллы Марка ультра-консервативных богословии, в котором говорится, что мы окружены, что Запад хочет секуляризовать нас. The state gives the radicals space and freedom because it needs them to be on their side, for fear of being vulnerable. Государство дает радикалам пространства и свободы, потому что она нуждается в них, чтобы быть на их стороне, из страха быть уязвимой.
In Pakistan, the government occasionally tries to implement so-called Islamic measures. В Пакистане правительство иногда пытается осуществлять так называемые исламские меры. Then other people come along and charge that these measures are not Islamic. Потом и другие люди приходят вместе и заряд, что эти меры не являются мусульманскими. But when government officials try to roll back the measures, conservative leaders will accuse them of attacking Islam. Но когда правительственные чиновники пытаются свернуть меры, консервативные лидеры будут обвинять их в нападении ислама.
Take someone like Benhazir Bhutto, who was seen as a well-educated, forward-looking woman. Взять кого-то, как Benhazir Бхутто, которая рассматривалась как хорошо образованные, перспективные женщины. When she was in power, how much did she actually do with regard to the status of women? Когда она была у власти, сколько же она на самом деле делать в связи с положением женщин? She realized that she would have an Islamic problem and did not want to be vulnerable. Она поняла, что ей придется Исламская проблемы и не хотят быть уязвимыми. That does not allow the kind of space we're talking about. Это не позволяет теплые места мы сейчас говорим.
Many Muslim scholars and students who have come to Europe and America have found much more open space to write about these issues very freely. Много мусульманских ученых и студентов, которые приехали в Европе и Америке нашли гораздо более открытое пространство, чтобы написать об этих вопросах очень свободно. Ironically, they have problems back in the Muslim world where more conservative forces will accuse them of not being good Muslims, as being koofa , or deviant. That, too, is an issue. По иронии судьбы, у них есть проблемы обратно в мусульманском мире, где более консервативные силы будут обвинять их не хорошие мусульмане, как koofa, или девиантным. Это тоже вопрос.
The Red Threat has been “replaced” by the Muslim Threat. Красная угроза была "заменена" По мусульманской угрозы. Let's assume that everyone befriends each other for a while. Давайте предположим, что каждый человек знакомится друг с другом на некоторое время. Where do you see the next enemy? Где вы видите следующий враг? Is there a need for global powers to have an enemy in order to stay united? Есть ли необходимость в глобальной державы есть враг, с тем чтобы выступить единым фронтом?
Unfortunately, the history of the past few decades has reinforced the notion of a global enemy. К сожалению, история последних нескольких десятилетий усилили понятие глобального врага. As a result of the Cold War, many people have grown up in a world that encouraged them to define themselves in terms of “us” and “them,” on one side or the other. В результате "холодной войны", многие люди, выросшие в мире, который призвал их определяют себя в терминах "нас" и "чужих", на одной или другой стороны. When that passed, there was a natural tendency to wonder whether the next competitor would be the EU or Japan. Когда это прошло, существует естественная тенденция усомниться в том, следующий конкурент будет в ЕС или Япония. But then Islam quickly became the next big global threat. Но тогда Ислам быстро стала следующая большая глобальная угроза. Both sides think: “We're right and they're wrong, we're the forces of God and they are necessarily the forces of evil, and we have a moral obligation to fight those forces.” Обе стороны считают: "Мы правы, а они не правы, мы сила Божия, и они обязательно силами зла, и у нас есть моральное обязательство бороться с этими силами".
For the next 20–30 years, it will be a matter of trying to work out the relationship between the Muslim world and the West. В течение следующих 20-30 лет, то это будет вопрос, пытаясь понять, отношения между мусульманским миром и Западом. The issue will be with us for a long time, as well as the broader problem of global terror—which, by the way, extends beyond Muslims. Этот вопрос будет с нами на долгое время, а также более широкая проблема глобального терроризма, которое, кстати, выходит за рамки мусульман.
If people's sense of history ever gets away from the need to define things in terms of us and them, it will not be in my lifetime, and probably not in yours. Если смысл народной историей всегда уходит от необходимости определения вещей в плане нами и ими, он не будет в моей жизни, и, вероятно, не в ваш.
Sadly, I agree with you. К сожалению, я с вами согласен. Thank you so much for your time. Большое вам спасибо за ваше время.