LETTER 2 -- SAUDI RESPONSE TO THE US

[the first part of this entry series is here]

The Saudi response to the American letter is here.

Overall, I actually found the tone / content of the Saudi response better constructed than the German one.   While the German response tended to spawn a wider number of parallel, divergent threads, the Saudi response laid out a series of underlying statements of principle and developed them into arguments.   (Not that the Saudi one didn't try to take the debate into other areas)

On the other hand, the Saudi response seemed to focus far more on a strict reading of "what does the Quran say a Muslim should do" rather than "what have some Muslims, in the name of the Quran done?"

For example:

...why the attackers did not choose some other country that adheres to the same Western values? Why did they not turn their attention to other nations and societies in Asia and Africa that subscribe to idolatrous religions, for they would have been more deserving of attack if the issue with the attackers was to fight against those who disagreed with their values. Moreover, Islam teaches that the Christians are closer to the Muslims than any other people.

This argument is used to advance the idea that specific Western policies rather than "a nation outside of Dar Al-Islam" was the casus belli. 

An example of this policy is the question of double standards of treatment:

From another angle, if we were to assume that the perpetrators of the September 11 attacks against the United States were the work of some special faction from within Europe, China, or Japan, or even a religious faction of the Jews, would America's decision then have been to subject them and their nations to the type of aggression that they are now confronting the Muslims with? This policy only supplies more evidence to the alleged perpetrators and their sympathizers for their claim that America is oppressing and aggressing against the Muslim world.

The problem of course, is that there ARE historical examples of each of these and, in most cases, the extent of the "oppressing and aggressing" US response was actually greater.   Europe (in the forms of Germany, Italy, and the Soviet bloc) all threatened the US and triggered, in some cases, massive military responses and occupation.   As did Japan.   Chinese and US forces brushed in the Korean conflict.

Unfortunately, the key difference across these situations is that Europe, China, or Japan tended to focus primarily on conventional military attacks against predominantly military targets.   The great "Muslim" difference here was the invocation of terrorism against civilian targets.   (NOTE:  I clearly recognize that not all Muslims are to blame here, however, I quote the word "Muslim" to refer to the Saudi authors who are treating them more homogeneously).  

The generalized theme of the letter is probably best expressed in this passage:

The West must realize that by blocking the specific options and moderate aspirations of the Muslim world and by creating conflicts, they will bring about perspectives in the Muslim world that will be hard to overcome in the future and will create problems for generations to come all over the world.

Alas, this argument can be summed as "US policies have forced a certain response from Muslim individuals",  or, more simply, "you've brought it upon yourselves"

LETTER 3 -- US REBUTTAL TO SAUDIS

The US Intellectuals fire back:

Our most important disagreement with you is that nowhere in your letter do you discuss or even acknowledge the role of your society in creating, protecting, and spreading the jihadist [3] violence that today threatens the world, including the Muslim world. 

For example, speaking of those who murdered 3,000 innocent persons on September 11, you do not speak in your letter of perpetrators, but instead of "alleged perpetrators."  These words sadden and disappoint us. Do you expect us to believe that you are not aware that 15 of the 19 murderers of September 11 were Saudis? Or that their leader, Osama bin Laden, was a Saudi? Or that their organization, al-Qa`ida, has for years received substantial financial support from sources in Saudi Arabia? Or that a high proportion of Qa`ida and Taliban fighters captured by U.S. and allied forces in Afghanistan are Saudis? Or that the spread of violence by Islamist groups across the world, from Afghanistan to Indonesia to the United States, is clearly traceable, in part, to the ongoing financial, political, and religious support for such activities in your country? 

And there lies one of the core US accusations -- a tendency to blame the outside world for internal, domestic problems.  

...we urge you as intellectuals to consider whether the most urgent challenges facing your society - unemployment, the lack of democratic freedoms, the failure to build a modern, diversified economy, and the nurturing and exporting of Islamist violence - can be adequately solved through a strategy that consists largely of scapegoating other people and other nations.

Part of this can be seen in differing world views on the source of domestic political rights:

Opposing those in the U.S. whom you call "conflict mongers," you write that "stability is the basis for rights and freedoms throughout the world." We believe that you have largely inverted cause and effect - we believe that rights and freedoms are the basis of stability. 

And finally, the call to action:

Finally, do you believe that Saudi intellectuals and religious leaders who hold that the two are inconsistent have an obligation to explain publicly and concretely why the ideas and activities of al-Qa`ida and similar groups are wrong and dangerous from an Islamic point of view?

This final call to action is probably the source of the censorship that kicked off this blog entry.  

[Back to US Letter]
[To German Response]

---