Religion or Western Oppression

This post ends with the author relating a story of how he had asked a friend of his what evidence it would take to convince him that the attacks of 9/11 were motivated primarily by religion.  The friend held the opinion that Western oppression was to blame.

To me this argument seems like the nature vs. nurture debate.  I think the best answer is Nature Via Nurture.  In order to understand the attacks of 9/11 we need understand traditional Muslim ideas about war and how these ideas are likely to influence Muslim reaction to recent events.

If we want to know what motivated the attacks, we can simply look at what Osama Bin Laden said on the subject.  When people fly airplanes into buildings, this is a pretty good indication that they have a grievance.  Even if the grievance is illegitimate or the expression of that grievance is unjustified, it is worthwhile to learn enough about where your enemies are coming from to understand that grievance.

Here is a list:

1. The U.S. stationed troops in Saudi Arabia.  This is seen as offensive regardless of whether or not the government approves.  Mohammad is traditionally believed to have said on his deathbed "Let there be only one religion in Arabia."  Thus only Muslims should be in Arabia by this tradition.  Muslims may disagree over precisely what area is meant by Arabia in this context, but we can be confident that some minority will interpret this quite widely.  If a government in the area permits us to station soldiers, some faction will likely view this as a sign that that government is not truly Muslim and is thus illegitimate.

2. The U.S. attacked a Muslim country, Iraq, and was using Saudi Arabia as a staging ground on which to launch such attacks.  Regardless of how you view the justice of such attacks, this is something that is likely to draw violent opposition from at least some Muslims.

3. The U.S. supports Israel.  Israel is made up of land that was once governed by Muslims.  Granted the more blind this support is, that is to say the more abuses of Palestinians we are willing to overlook, the more Muslims will support this grievance.  Nevertheless, regardless of the behavior of Israel, the existence of Israel will always be seen as illegitimate to at least a minority of Muslims.

What we have to be aware of is the traditional doctrine of Jihad.  There is offensive Jihad and defensive Jihad.  If we are concerned about minority interpretation, which for the purpose of responding to terrorism we should be, we should be more concerned with defensive Jihad.  This is so because this is seen as a duty for each individual Muslim.  Offensive Jihad is something that is a much more distant prospect, but it is important to understand this as well.

Traditionally every able bodied Muslim man is required to participate in defensive Jihad.  Whenever a Muslim country is attacked by non-Muslims, Muslims are required to wage war.  This can be invoked regardless of how tyrannical the ostensibly Muslim leader is.  It is obvious from the list of grievances that Osama Bin Laden saw his struggle as a defensive Jihad.  We need to understand that any attack against a Muslim country carries the potential that some minority will declare a defensive Jihad and inspire acts of terrorism against the country issuing such an attack.  This is so regardless of whatever justification such an attack has under international law.  Even the support of Muslim countries will not necessarily protect us.  Since defensive Jihad is an obligation of all able bodied Muslim men, any minority viewpoint on this issue is dangerous.  Granted there are reasons why we might want to attack a predominantly Muslim country in any case, but we need to take this risk into consideration when making that type of decision.

Offensive Jihad is less dangerous at present, since is only a requirement of the community.  Traditionally whenever Islam is militarily capable, it is the duty of the community to expand its borders.  There is some dispute on this matter.  Some interpret this as meaning that offensive wars may be waged against countries that prohibit Islam.  Under this view the U.S. couldn't be attacked since we have freedom of religion.  In any case, so long as we are aware of this doctrine Islam will not be able to expand its borders in this manner in the foreseeable future.  There are more non-Muslims in the world than Muslims.

Some have argued that there is a risk of Muslims taking over through demographics.  If this were a serious risk, it would be dangerous.  Muslim majority countries don't tend to respect religious freedom.  They often suppress intellectual inquiry in Biology, where the theory of evolution by means of natural selection is dominant.  Alarmists often exaggerate the extent to which Muslims are gaining ground in non-Muslim countries.  In this effort they are ironically aided by Muslim leaders who want to brag about the success of Islam in Europe, for example.  Whenever you hear figures from such organizations, you need to verify them with objective sources.  Pay close attention to difference between figures for all immigrants, those from Muslim countries and those who self-identify as Muslims.  The latter category is what we have to be concerned with.

Even here it may well be the case that many individuals who support Islam and move to liberal countries, support liberal government as well.  That is a good reason, after all, to move to a country that grants liberty to individuals.  Discrimination on the basis of religion might be necessary at some point in order to preserve a  free society.  Liberty depends on popular support for itself.  However, that form of discrimination carries a very high price in terms of undermining the very values we want to protect.  We should only take such measures if we are sure that they are necessary.  It is far from clear that they are necessary in the U.S.