The Foreign Service Journal, April 2008

F O C U S 22 F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L / A P R I L 2 0 0 8 shapes human rights practices as much or more than Quranic injunctions. This is particularly true because many of these states are shame societies, where immoral conduct disgraces the entire community and must be avenged publicly — frequently by the offender’s family as illustrated by honor killings of women. By contrast, most Western countries are guilt societies, where immoral con- duct is a personal matter, with the individual being held solely responsible to the state for his or her conduct. Systems of justice in Muslim countries are also amal- gams of Shariah, Western influences and cultural her- itage. Islamic law usually influences family and criminal matters, with business issues governed by grievance law. Still, there are some stark differences. While the Western legal tradition emphasizes open trials with a jury of one’s peers and legal representation, the Shariah-based code of Saudi Arabia seeks justice from a different perspective. No circumstantial evidence is permitted, only eyewitness- es and confessions. In the absence of the required num- ber of witnesses, it is the duty of the judge to ascertain the truth from the defendant. Open trials, juries and legal representation hinder that process. Generally, human rights are treated as a communitari- an concept in Islam. Individuals have the right to expect justice and fairness from God and the Muslim communi- ty (umma) as a whole, but do not intrinsically possess inalienable rights. A “Clash of Globalizations”? The 9/11 attacks gave new prominence to political sci- entist Samuel Huntington’s warnings of a developing clash of civilizations. But there are several things wrong with Huntington’s thesis. First is his notion that clashes are the predominant feature of relations between Islam and non- Islamic societies. Such a view ignores the routine cooper- ation that underwrites the mutual undertakings support- ing the world’s political, military, energy, financial, com- mercial and economic agendas. Second, his level of generalization is too broad to have analytical importance for policymakers. Both the West and Islam encompass such diversity that using the idea of a conflict of civilizations as a primary analytical tool is sim- ply not useful — and is actually harmful. Both within Islam and between the Muslimworld and the West, clash- es occur, but few are unmitigated. What about a “civilization of clashes,” the latest recast- ing of the debate, as a term to describe Islam? Jonathan Fox’s study of religious conflicts between 1945 and 2000 finds that the significant contrast in levels of internal strife is not between Islam and Christianity but between these two and all others; he credits their elevated levels of vio- lence to their claims of exclusivity. Perhaps the most useful way to proceed is to interpret conflicts as a clash of globalizations. Ideological conflicts are inevitable; but as this process produces an even greater blending of cultures, they are not necessarily intractable or non-negotiable. In this regard, it is worth recalling that the Constitution of Medina that Moham- mad promulgated in 622 offered a framework for peace- fully settling disputes among Jews, Christians and other groups, as part of its outline of governance for the newly founded Muslim community. First Steps With that in mind, the incoming administration should take as its premise that political Islam may be our enemy or our friend, depending on the context. To react appro- priately to each situation, both the diversity within Islam and the multiplicity of U.S. interest should be borne in mind. Thus, our attitude toward Hamas, which advocates violence, should differ from our attitude toward the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, which has evolved from the days of Banna and Qutb and now renounces violence. That suggests a second maxim: put a premium on regional expertise. As the U.S. Army/Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Field Manual observes: “What makes intelligence analysis for COIN so distinct and challenging is the amount of information that must be gathered and understood. ... Commanders and their staffs must expend at least as much effort understanding the people they are supporting as the enemy. Identifying the real problem is the essence of the operational design process.” Finally, there is scope for action. Both the Zogby and Gallup polls document a great decline in respect for the United States in the Islamic world. But they also indicate that Muslims generally object to our policies, not our val- ues. What they want is respect for their religion and what they fear is political domination and occupation. Ironically, the strongest support for democracy is found among the radicalized rather than the moderates. Thus, the first order of business for the new adminis- tration should be a reassessment of the premises of policy. The second should be the education of the American peo- ple about the diversity of Islam.