As the region totters on the brink of war, it is difficult to feel positive about anything at this time. No matter how smart the bombs, no matter how determined the bombers to avoid civilian casualties, no matter how convinced Washington is that the war will be short, no matter how resolved it is to maintain Iraqi unity afterward, we fear death and destruction on a massive scale. We fear that, far from creating a peaceful and harmonious Iraq, the result will be continuing chaos and conflict, with dire consequences for the entire region — and perhaps the world beyond. But even if all these things happen, there is at least one crumb of comfort to be drawn from the inevitable slide toward war. There is a small but invaluable silver lining to the cloud that darks the region’s skies.
Since Sept. 11 the talk of a “clash of civilizations” — of the Islamic world pitted against the rest of humanity — has found many ready takers. It is not just the twisted minds in Al-Qaeda who want to believe it; there are those at the other extreme who embrace it, such as the permanently Arab-bashing Richard Perle, chairman of the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board, or the two Republicans who walked out during prayers at the opening session earlier this month of the Washington State House of Representatives because they were being led by a Muslim.
Those who want to believe the theory see the war against Iraq as proof of it. It is, they say, a war against Islam.
Such people are willfully blind. That the pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the leaders of virtually all Christian churches are so adamantly opposed to this war proves exactly the opposite. This is no war against Islam, no clash of civilizations. The opposition to war of France, of Germany, of Russia, of China, of the millions who have taken to the streets across the world — not least in the US and the UK — all speak of something very different. They speak of a unity of purpose and a desire for peace that surmounts the religious divide.
Even France’s extreme right-wing leader, Jean-Marie Le Pen, is opposed to a war with Iraq — and he is notoriously anti-Muslim (not to mention a great admirer of Saddam Hussein). Equally, there are Muslims — in Kuwait, in Bahrain, in Qatar, even here — who support an attack on Iraq. And the new Islamist government of Turkey does as well.
In any event, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq is not, strictly speaking, “Islamic”. Its Baathist ideology is overtly secular, Muslims there have been persecuted — and over a million Iraqis are Christian. Indeed, Christians figure predominantly among supporters of the regime — so much so that many believe that they will be the principal scapegoats in a new Iraq.
Whatever one might say about George Bush’s reasons for going to war against Baghdad, religion is the least of them. This is not a war against Islam. That it is a dangerous lie, and deeply corrupting to those who believe it because it makes them bigots. The other danger is that it has the potential to be a self-fulfilling lie if enough people believe it and respond accordingly.
But that is not going to happen. The myth has been exposed — by the stand taken by countries such as France and Germany, and by the protests of priests and people alike in Britain, in the US.
It should now be laid to rest.
