A survey of mainstream Muslims’ opinion of U.S foreign policy provides insight into their worldview, giving us ample reason to doubt the veracity of our own established opinion.
The survey mentioned in this column provides a generic overview of Muslims views on specific political questions and does not reflect the political philosophy of individual adherents of Islam, which may be as unique as snowflakes.
In fact, the well-informed understand that the Muslim world is extremely diverse and exhibits no common political ideology. Let that be my holy disclaimer, used the way a cross wards off throngs of vampires lusting for blood.
WorldPublicOpinion.org, a project of the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland, surveyed Muslims in Morocco, Egypt, Indonesia and Pakistan – which constitute the majority of the world’s Muslims. The report was published in April 2007 and can be found on its Web site. It is a detailed survey that would be impossible to cover in its entirety given the quantitative limitations of this column. However, the following selections will grant us a deeper understanding of the effectiveness of our foreign policy and perhaps make its "natural perfection" suspect in our mind.
The report showed that an overwhelming majority of Muslims adamantly oppose attacks on civilians, view them as blatantly contrary to the injunctions of Islam and believe suicide attacks are "rarely-to-never" justified. However, opinion is split about attacks on U.S. troops in Afghanistan, the Persian Gulf and Iraq. Clearly, Muslims do not believe Islam sanctions such violence, but may support it based on individual political opinion.
The survey also revealed that the vast majority expressed a disturbingly high level of uncertainty over the identities of the Sept. 11 hijackers. This is corroborated by my experience in my last visit to Pakistan more than two years ago; DVD’s of American Sept. 11 conspiracy theorists’ opinions were being openly sold in markets and were quite popular.
Exacerbating my feelings of shock and repulsion was the fact that such conspiracy theories were held as fact by both friends and acquaintances, instead of being used as a means of critical inquiry. This disparity is what differentiates between constructing informed opinions and holding convenient, blissfully ignorant and intellectually dishonest opinions that shrug off the uncomfortable responsibility of cold, hard introspection.
Furthermore, a staggering majority of those surveyed believe the U.S. aims to weaken Islam, divide the Muslim world and spread Christianity.
However, Western-educated Muslims who have taken a few courses in American history, Western philosophy or political science, will probably find this a laughable and ridiculous misperception.
On the brighter side, most Muslims expressed desire for a democratic government, though this does not bode well for our foreign interests, as we have propped up or supported many autocratic regimes across the Muslim world. This includes the Al-Saud family, which named an entire country after itself – Saudi Arabia – thus symbolically claiming it as the royal family’s personal property. The implications for the concept of citizenship, and hence for democracy, are obvious.
We also support Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak who has violently oppressed dissident Egyptians, continuing his country’s legacy of oppressive dictators. And who can forget Gen. Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan? According to The Associated Press, he stated on Jan. 25, "the (coming) elections will be free, fair, transparent and peaceful. Whatever bugs there were in the system have been removed by me and my government." In retrospect, one can imagine his notice that dismissed the entire panel of Supreme Court Justices, must have been titled "In the Name of Democracy, Stop Bugging Me."
Arguments for supporting such regimes are ironically based on our self-interest, instead of the ideals our country sings about – democracy and freedom. But if we are to continue this Hobbesian approach, we should consider readjusting our expectation of likeability and appeal to the rest of the world, and buckle in for a dreary future of widespread hostility, "rug-burn" friction and more conflicts.
At least then we will stop coming across as suffering from severe cognitive dissonance, if not as outright hypocrites to our own slogan of inalienable human rights.
Ahmad, a political science senior, can be reached via [email protected]
