In a report published in Arab News on Tuesday, US Air Force Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters that there were two or three complaints of personnel mishandling the Qur’an. He brushed aside the idea of court-martialing the offenders. He said:“This is serious, but it’s clearly not going to result in court martial activity. But it depends on why they did it — what the motivation was.” In a follow-up to the story of the Qur’an being mishandled, Newsweek published the opinion of a political analyst who said he could not understand the anger the Muslim world is feeling; he compared the case to the freedom in America when it comes to criticizing religion.
If these two examples tell us anything, it is that there is indeed a huge gap between East and West. Leaving aside specific examples, it is instructive to note how certain issues spark anger on one side and surprise at the anger on the other side. Conspiracy theories and bad intentions notwithstanding, don’t these cases tell us something that we need to realize and deal with? Whatever they do, the two examples certainly indicate a serious lack of mutual understanding.
Gen. Myers’ remarks might sound reasonable enough in some circles but they illustrate that he does not fully understand what such remarks mean to ordinary people. The remarks might provoke greater anger at US policies while the US side would simply be surprised at that reaction. In a discussion at the Heritage Foundation in Washington two weeks ago, one of the foundation’s researchers criticized the Arab media for focusing on the Palestinian issue; he said that Arab TV always shows images of Palestinian casualties but never shows the Israeli ones. I can see where he is coming from and to be honest, he is exactly right. But this bias not only appears in the Arab media but also — from the other side — in the US media. We can fairly say that Palestinian issues are not fully analyzed or projected in the US media. The Arab media concentrates on Arab suffering and understandably adopts the Arab point of view; the US media naturally takes the American point of view which differs from the Arab one. The truth is, however, that at times, sticking to only one side is blinding. Because you do not see the other side and do not understand it, you reject it.
How have things developed to the point that we are guilty of mutual blindness of each other’s views? I had to point out to the researcher a small point that might explain a little of the Arab view. “You might not see why Arabs sympathize with the Palestinian cause, because you do not fully understand the importance of Palestine to each Arab. The importance of Jerusalem to every Muslim and the brotherhood people feel with their fellow Palestinians.”
I had to point out that some American think tanks fail to come down to the reality of the cultural aspects of problems; they see things only from an American perspective. It is easy to spot prejudices and complain of stereotypes but fairness and honesty require extra efforts. If researchers investigate for themselves, visit the countries they are writing about and talk to those on both sides, maybe they will see things in a different — and more balanced — light.
I asked the researcher about the nature of the Heritage Foundation reports, and he said they were political and economic. My response was to ask him if the cultural aspect was ever considered and he answered that that was not a part of what they do. I know that in order to do serious research you must be specific, but doesn’t research on political trends in a country also imply an understanding of the country’s culture? After all, it is the culture that is producing the situation being researched. Don’t people’s beliefs affect the political atmosphere? Can’t we see this in all the negative sentiments and public complaints against the US for both Guantanomo and Abu Ghraib? These incidents have political overtones but they are deeply-rooted in culture.
How, then, can the gap be overcome? As complicated as the political situation has become, it seems that cultural exchange and understanding is the only way out. If the top decision makers are not doing their best to reach an understanding, things are left to smaller organizations to try and build bridges. A little bit of understanding can change a dangerously explosive situation and potentially also change the outlooks of old enemies.
Summer Marriages?
On the Al-Arabiya website, I found an article about the latest quickie marriages in the Gulf. After “misyar marriage” — which is a contract between a man and a woman in which the man is free from any legal obligation to the woman who is, for all practical purposes, his wife; nevertheless, they do not live together and in fact, the woman usually lives apart from him and he has no financial obligation to her — comes messyaf marriage — i.e. summer marriages.
The article gives examples of men who look for women to accompany them on their summer travels. They ask for certain qualifications in the women — beauty, knowledge of English, willing to travel with him and a sizable dowry.
I do not know much about such things but I have heard of men who want a young girl as a second wife. The girls all speak English and are willing to travel abroad since they seem to feel their other wives are not presentable to their foreign friends and associates.
The article adds another aspect for flavor, I suppose. There are women who want to travel but lack a mahram ( a male guardian). They marry for the duration of their travels and of course offer financial incentives as well.
The interesting thing is that the writer of the article asked a sheikh for his opinion about these marriages, and the sheikh seemed happy to say that it was legal and that if men felt that they would be tempted by other women while traveling, they had the right to resort to this limited contract marriage.
I do not know what these marriage trends say about our society except that we really have serious problems which should lead us to serious counseling.
