Download 15292 - Rochester Institute of Technology

15292.txt
The Gannett Lecture Series
March 24, 2005
"Has a Clash of Civilizations Begun?: Islam and the West"
Presented by: Ali A. Mazrui Discussed by: Amit Ray and Paul Grebinger
>> GOOD EVENING. WELCOME TO THE SPRING QUARTER SERIES OF LECTURES IN THE
CAROLINE WERNER GANNETT LECTURE SERIES. MY NAME IS PAUL GREBINGER, AND I AM
GANNETT LECTURER AND COORDINATOR OF SENIOR SEMINAR. TONIGHT'S LECTURE, "HAS A
CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS BEGUN? ISLAM AND THE WEST," IS THE FIRST OF REALLY TWO
LECTURES, THE ONE SUCCEEDING ON APRIL 14th WITH DANIEL PIPES, AND "MILITANT
ISLAM AND THE WAR ON TERROR" WAS ORGANIZED WITH THIS ONE AS A KIND OF
POINT/COUNTERPOINT SERIES. SO, BASICALLY, IF YOU WANT TO FOLLOW THIS LECTURE UP
TONIGHT, I THINK YOU WILL FIND IT VERY INTERESTING TO COME TO THE ONE ON THE
14th AS WELL. MY ROLE TONIGHT IS TO BASICALLY INTRODUCE THE SPEAKERS AND THEN
I'M GOING TO SERVE AS DISCUSSANT THIS EVENING, THE LAST OF THE DISCUSSANTS, AND
THEN FINALLY I WILL ACTUALLY BE THE PERSON IN CONTROL OF THE MOBILE MIC. IF YOU
HAVE A QUESTION, I'LL BRING THE MICROPHONE AROUND TO YOU. YOU ASK THE QUESTION,
PLEASE, HOLDING THE MIC ABOUT THREE INCHES FROM YOUR FACE. THAT WAY EVERYBODY
WILL BE ABLE TO HEAR YOU AND WE WOULD APPRECIATE THAT VERY MUCH. I DO MOVE
PRETTY QUICKLY, NOT TO WORRY. AND I'D LIKE ALSO TO INTRODUCE OUR INTERPRETING
STAFF THIS EVENING BEFORE I MAKE INTRODUCTIONS OF THE PARTICIPANTS. FIRST OF
ALL, INTERPRETING TO MY RIGHT IS MIRIAM WERNER AND YOU'LL ALSO SEE KIRSTEN
BORKOWSKY. I THINK MIRIAM AND TERESA JONES WILL INTERPRET ALL THESE LECTURES
THIS TERM; CORRECT? >> IF SHE CAN. >> THAT'S GREAT BECAUSE THESE ARE OUR BEST
INTERPRETERS. I'M VERY PLEASED THAT THEY'RE WILLING TO BE HERE. LET ME
INTRODUCE, FIRST OF ALL, Dr. ALI MAZRUI, AND THEN AMIT RAY AND FINALLY A LITTLE
BIT ABOUT ME. Dr. MAZRUI IS CURRENTLY ALBERT SCHWEITZER PROFESSOR IN HUMANITIES
AND DIRECTOR OF THE INSTITUTE OF GLOBAL CULTURAL STUDIES AT BINGHAMTON
UNIVERSITY IN BINGHAMTON, NEW YORK. HE WAS BORN IN MOMBASA, KENYA, AND COMPLETED
HIS DOCTORATE AT OXFORD UNIVERSITY. SINCE THEN, HE'S TAUGHT IN A VARIETY OF
UNIVERSITIES BOTH HERE AND ABROAD. IN HIS EARLIER YEARS, FOR EXAMPLE, HE WAS
HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE AND DEAN OF THE FACULTY OF SOCIAL
SCIENCE MAKERERE UNIVERSITY IN KAMPALA, UGANDA. HE'S BEEN DIRECTOR OF THE CENTER
FOR AFRO-AMERICAN STUDIES AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, ANN ARBOR. HIS MORE
THAN 20 BOOKS INCLUDE "CULTURAL FORCES IN WORLD POLITICS" AND "THE POWER OF
BABEL: LANGUAGE AND GOVERNMENT IN AFRICA'S EXPERIENCE," WHICH HE CO-AUTHORED
WITH HIS WIFE, ALAMIN M. MAZRUI, WHICH BOOK WAS LAUNCHED AT THE HOUSE OF LORDS
IN ENGLAND AT AN HISTORIC CEREMONY SALUTING HIS WORKS. HE'S CURRENTLY WORKING ON
A PROJECT WITH HIS WIFE. IN 1998, PROFESSOR MAZRUI WAS ELECTED TO THE BOARD OF
TRUSTEES OF THE OXFORD CENTER OF ISLAMIC STUDY AND THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
NATIONAL SUMMIT ON AFRICA IN WASHINGTON, D.C. AMONG HIS MANY ACTIVITIES, HIS
OUTREACH TO NON-SCHOLARLY AUDIENCES THROUGH THE BBC AND PBS TELEVISION SERIES,
"THE AFRICANS: A TRIPLE HERITAGE." THAT ALSO APPEARED IN BOOK FORM. THAT'S MY
FIRST ENCOUNTER WITH Dr. MAZRUI, BY THE WAY. I REMEMBER THE SERIES VERY WELL IN
THE 1980s. HE'S WIDELY CONSULTED ON AFRICAN AFFAIRS AND ISLAM CULTURE AND
HISTORY. IN THE INTERESTS OF HEARING FROM Dr. MAZRUI THIS EVENING RATHER THAN
TELL YOU ABOUT HIM, I WILL NOT LIST, EVEN BY EXAMPLE, THE MANY AWARDS AND
HONORARY DEGREES HE HAS RECEIVED. I STRONGLY ADVISE THAT YOU DO NOT GOOGLE HIM
UNLESS YOU'VE GOT A LOT OF EXTRA TIME ON YOUR HANDS. NEEDLESS TO SAY, I AM
PLEASED HE WAS ABLE TO FIND THE TIME TO BE WITH US THIS EVENING AND LOOK FORWARD
TO HIS TALK. HIS TALK WILL THEN BE FOLLOWED BY BRIEF DISCUSSIONS, FIRST FROM
AMIT RAY, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE IN THE COLLEGE OF
LIBERAL ARTS HERE AT RIT. HE COMPLETED HIS Ph.D. AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN,
ANN ARBOR. HIS RESEARCH INTERESTS INCLUDE SOUTH ASIAN ORIENTALISM AND THE
CONSTRUCTION OF INDIANISTS IN THE-- THE TITLE OF A MONOGRAPH HE'S WORKING ON
CURRENTLY AND ALSO LOTS OF STUFF WITH VISUAL CULTURE AND THE HUMANITIES. WHEN HE
LEARNED THAT ALI MAZRUI WAS SCHEDULED TO PRESENT A LECTURE HERE, HE JUMPED AT
THE CHANCE TO BE A DISCUSSANT. I'M PLEASED WITH HIS EXCITEMENT AND EAGERNESS.
HERE I AM, PAUL GREBINGER, IN MY ROLE AS GANNETT LECTURER AND COORDINATOR OF
SENIOR SEMINAR. I'M RESPONSIBLE FOR ORGANIZING THIS LECTURE SERIES. I MUST SAY
QUITE STRONGLY WITH THE ADVICE AND CONSENT FROM FACULTY, TEACHING SENIOR
SEMINAR. IN FACT, THIS LECTURE THIS EVENING WAS ONE THAT CAME FROM FACULTY
DISCUSSION AND WAS STRONGLY PROMOTED BY ONE OF OUR SENIOR SEMINAR FACULTY, WHO
ACTUALLY ALSO ASSISTED IN MAKING THE ARRANGEMENTS WITH Dr. MAZRUI. MY DISCIPLINE
IS ANTHROPOLOGY AND I TEACH AN ANTHROPOLOGY/RELIGION COURSE IN THE COLLEGE OF
LIBERAL ARTS, BUT I HAVE BASICALLY INSERTED MYSELF AS A DISCUSSANT TONIGHT TO
PROVIDE SOME TRANSITION TO THE LECTURE THAT FOLLOWS ON APRIL 14th THAT I ALREADY
MENTIONED: DANIEL PIPES, "MILITANT ISLAM AND THE WAR ON TERROR." THESE TWO
LECTURES ARE BASICALLY CONCEIVED AS OPPOSING VIEWPOINTS OR POINTS OF VIEW ON A
SIGNIFICANT ISSUE OF OUR TIME, AND I CERTAINLY HOPE TO SEE YOU ALL AT THAT
LECTURE ON THE 14th AS WELL. SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH AND LET'S GIVE A WARM
WELCOME TO Dr. ALI MAZRUI. (Applause) >> THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. I'M SORRY; MY ARTHRITIS IS ACTING UP, BUT IT'S ALL RIGHT WHEN I'M
STANDING. THANK YOU FOR YOUR VERY GENEROUS WELCOME. I HOPE YOU'LL CONTINUE TO BE
GENEROUS AFTER YOU'VE HEARD WHAT I HAVE TO SAY. FIRST, MY THANKS TO MY HOSTS FOR
INVOLVING ME IN WHAT I REGARD AS AN IMAGINATIVE SERIES OF LECTURES, AND I HOPE
YOU WILL COME TO THE OTHER LECTURE WHICH MIGHT BE SOMEWHAT ADVERSARIAL TO WHAT
I'M GOING TO SAY, THOUGH IT WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER IF Dr. DANIEL PIPES AND
MYSELF WERE ARRIVING BEFORE YOU ON THE SAME DAY, SAME EVENING TO EXCHANGE IDEAS
BEFORE YOU DIRECTLY. ANYHOW, BUT YOU WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO LISTEN TO BOTH
POINTS OF VIEW, BUT MY LECTURE IS NOT STRUCTURED IN ANTICIPATION OF Dr. PIPE'S
AND I'M SURE HIS IS NOT STRUCTURED AS A REBUTTAL OF MINE. THE ISSUE OF CLASH OF
CIVILIZATIONS, AS MOST OF YOU KNOW, RECEIVED A NEW STIMULUS IN 1993 WITH AN
ARTICLE WHICH WAS PUBLISHED IN "FOREIGN AFFAIRS." IT WAS REGARDED AS THE MOST
IMPACTFUL, MOST INFLUENTIAL ARTICLE IN THE JOURNAL SINCE THE 1940s WHEN GEORGE
KENNAN PUBLISHED AN ARTICLE RELATED TO THE COLD WAR. I HAVE KNOWN SAMUEL
HUNTINGTON FOR 30 YEARS NOW AND WE HAVE DEBATED THAT ISSUE BOTH IN THE UNITED
STATES AND IN EUROPE. THERE ARE THE AREAS WHERE I AGREE WITH HIM AND OTHERS
WHERE I THINK HE IS VERY WRONG. BUT HIS THESIS THAT THERE'S A CLASH OF
CIVILIZATIONS LOOMING, HAS IT NOW BEEN VINDICATED? ARE WE WITNESSING A CLASH OF
CIVILIZATIONS UNFOLDING, ESPECIALLY BETWEEN THE WORLD OF ISLAM AND THE WESTERN
WORLD? THE ARTICLE IN "FOREIGN AFFAIRS" IN 1993, HUNTINGTON ARGUED THAT NOW THAT
THE COLD WAR HAD ENDED, FUTURE CONFLICTS WOULD BE LESS AND LESS BETWEEN STATES
AND IDEOLOGICAL BLOCS AND MORE AND MORE BETWEEN CIVILIZATIONS AND COALITIONS OF
CULTURES. THE ARTICLE POSED AN INTELLECTUAL EXPLOSION AT THE TIME. IT WAS
DEBATED FROM NEW YORK TO KUALA LUMPUR, FROM CAPE TOWN TO STOCKHOLM, AND IN
MEDINA WITH ME AND HUNTINGTON IN ATTENDANCE. TWO YEARS LATER, HE COMPLETED A
BOOK ON THE SUBJECT AND PUBLISHED IT. MOSTLY THIRD-WORLD CRITICS OF HUNTINGTON
ARGUED HE HAD IT ALL WRONG, THAT WE WERE NOT HEADED FOR A CLASH OF CIVILIZATION
AND CERTAINLY NOT BETWEEN THE WEST AND ISLAM. SOME INSISTED THAT THE UNITED
STATES AS THE FINAL INTERNATIONAL ACTOR WAS NOT IN DOUBT. MY POSITION HAS BEEN
DIFFERENT BOTH-- TONIGHT YOU'LL SEE WHY-- BOTH IN MY OWN CLASSES WHERE I TEACH
AND IN MY DISCUSSIONS WITH SAMUEL HUNTINGTON. HE POSES THE ISSUE AS IF CLASH OF
CIVILIZATIONS WAS SOMETHING FORTHCOMING. HE COMMITTED A NUMBER OF FALLACIES. ONE
WOULD BE THE FALLACY OF FACT WHERE THE CLASHES OF OTHER KINDS HAVE ENDED BETWEEN
STATES; THEN FALLACY OF CONCEPT, WHETHER CIVILIZATION IS THE RIGHT CONCEPT, AND
SECONDLY, AND THE MOST RELEVANT FOR US TONIGHT, THE FALLACY OF TIMING, TEMPORAL,
THE ASSUMPTION THAT CLASHES WERE PART OF THE FUTURE RATHER THAN INSEPARABLE FROM
THE PAST. SO THE TITLE OF MY TALK, "HAS A CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS BEGUN?" IS YES,
BUT IT BEGAN 500 YEARS AGO. WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN, SAM?! THE WESTERN WORLD HAS
BEEN COMMITTING ACTS OF AGGRESSIONS AGAINST OTHER CIVILIZATIONS FOR AT LEAST 500
YEARS. THERE WAS FIRST, IF YOU LIKE, THE GENOCIDE PHASE OF THE CLASH OF
CIVILIZATIONS. THESE WERE THE EARLIEST OF EUROPEAN MIGRATION AND SETTLEMENT OF
THE AMERICAS AND LATER AUSTRALIA. EUROPEANS CLASHED WITH CIVILIZATIONS LIKE
THOSE OF THE INCAS AND THE MAYAS, EFFECTIVELY DESTROYING THEM OR WEAKENING THEM.
SO THIS IS THE GENOCIDAL PHASE WHERE WHOLE CIVILIZATIONS PERISH BECAUSE OF
EITHER EUROPE'S GREED OR EUROPE'S CURIOSITY. SECONDLY, THE ENSLAVING PHASE OF
CIVILIZATION, NOT WHEN WHOLE POPULATIONS WERE BEING ANNIHILATED BUT ENSLAVED.
THE TRANSATLANTIC SLAVE TRADE EXPORTED MILLIONS OF PEOPLE. THIS WAS THE WESTERN
WORLD PERPETRATING AGGRESSION AGAINST OTHER CIVILIZATIONS. THE EVIDENCE OF THAT
PARTICULAR CLASH IS EVIDENT IN THIS HEMISPHERE NOW. OF COURSE THERE ARE MILLIONS
UPON MILLIONS OF PEOPLE OF AFRICAN ANCESTRY IN THIS HEMISPHERE. THE BIGGEST
GROUP IS NOT LIVING IN THE UNITED STATES BUT IS IN BRAZIL. THE THIRD PHASE OF
CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS-- WHERE WERE YOU, SAM HUNTINGTON, WHEN ALL THIS WAS
HAPPENING? WHERE WERE YOU WHEN EUROPE HAD EMPIRES?-- THE IMPERIAL PHASE OF CLASH
OF CIVILIZATION. THEY WENT AROUND CONQUERING SOCIETY AFTER SOCIETY, SUBJUGATING
THEM TO EUROPEAN CONTROL. REMNANTS OF THAT ARE STILL AROUND. FORTUNATELY DURING
MY OWN LIFETIME, ALTHOUGH I WAS BORN IN A BRITISH COLONY AND WAS ALREADY AN
ADULT BY THE TIME THE BRITISH LEFT, BUT AT LEAST THEY HAVE LEFT IN THE FORMAL
SENSE, THOUGH THEY HAVE OTHER FORMS OF INFLUENCE. SO THAT'S THE THIRD, IMPERIAL.
THE FOURTH IS THE HEGEMONIC PHASE OF CIVILIZATION. THIS IS TRULY THE AMERICAN
PHASE, THE AMERICAN POWER, ECONOMIC GLOBALIZATION AND THE AMERICAN DOMINION,
INFORMATION, GLOBALIZATION AND THE AMERICAN INFLUENCE, COMPREHENSIVE
GLOBALIZATION, AS THE "VILLAGE-IZATION" OF THE WORLD AND AMERICAN POWER, ONE
SUPERPOWER AS A SECURITY SYSTEM FOR THE GLOBE, THE FIRST AMONG UNEQUALS. THE
UNITED STATES IS SO FAR AHEAD OF ITS NEAREST MILITARY RIVAL THAT IT'S ALMOST A
JOKE, IF THE NEAREST MILITARY RIVAL IS RUSSIA. THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THE UNITED
STATES SPENDS ON ARMAMENTS ADDS UP TO THE TOTAL OF THE NEXT TEN MILITARY BUDGETS
ADDED TOGETHER. THIS HEGEMONIC PHASE OF UNPARALLELED SIGNIFICANCE. NEVER IN
HUMAN HISTORY HAS ONE POWER BEEN SO FAR AHEAD OF THE NUMBER TWO BEHIND. WE'LL
RETURN TO THAT LATER IN THE TALK. SO BEAR IN MIND THAT BROAD IDEA: WHEN DID THE
CIVILIZATION BEGIN TO CLASH? FORGET POST-COLD WAR AGENDAS LIKE SAM HUNTINGTON'S.
CIVILIZATIONS BEGAN TO CLASH 500 YEARS AGO. WHEN DID MUSLIMS AND THE WEST BEGIN
TO CLASH? THEY DID CLASH DURING THE CRUSADES, BUT THE WESTERNERS HAD LOTS OF
OPPORTUNITIES FOR REVENGE. MUCH OF THE MUSLIM WORLD WAS COLONIZED BY EUROPEANS
IN MY LIFETIME; MUCH OF IT SOUGHT INDEPENDENCE DURING MY LIFETIME. I'M IN MY
70s. SO IT'S AS RECENT AS THAT. BUT LET'S NOW TURN FROM THE BROAD SCOPE OF
CLASHES OF CIVILIZATIONS, OVER 500 YEARS ACROSS THE WORLD, AND LOOK AT THE
DIALOGUE ON CLASHES OF CIVILIZATION ON AMERICAN SOIL. LET US EXPLORE THE PHASES
OF RELATIONS BETWEEN ISLAM AND THE UNITED STATES, PRIMARILY IN RELATION TO THE
AMERICAN SOIL BUT WITH CONSEQUENCES FOR THE REST OF THE GLOBE. THERE, TOO, THERE
ARE PHASES. I TOLD YOU THE GLOBAL PHASES OF CLASHES OF CIVILIZATIONS ACROSS
CENTURIES. NOW I'M GIVING YOU PHASES ACROSS ONE SINGLE CENTURY: SINCE THE
BEGINNING OF THE 20th CENTURY, PRIMARILY BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND ISLAM.
PHASE ONE: WHAT CHARACTERIZED PHASE ONE? THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EURO-AMERICAN
VALUES AND TRADITIONAL ISLAMIC VALUES. IN THIS PHASE ONE, LET US SAY THE FIRST
HALF OF THE 20th CENTURY, RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN EURO-AMERICAN VALUES AND ISLAMIC
VALUES, THE RELATIONSHIP WAS CLOSE. IN THE FIRST HALF OF THE 20th CENTURIES,
AREAS OF SEXUAL BEHAVIOR, GENDER ROLES, ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION, THE DEATH PENALTY,
ALL THOSE ISSUES, ISLAMIC VALUES AND EURO-AMERICAN VALUES CONVERGED. IN THE
FIRST HALF OF THE 20th CENTURY, THERE WAS CONSIDERABLE NORMALITY OF SIMILARITIES
BETWEEN THE VALUES OF EUROPEANS AND NORTH AMERICANS AND THE VALUES OF THE MUSLIM
WORLD. BUT WITHIN THE SAME PHASE, FIRST HALF OF THE 20th CENTURY, LOOSELY
SPEAKING, THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EURO-AMERICAN PEOPLE AND MUSLIM PEOPLE, THOSE
RELATIONSHIPS WERE DISTANT; THEY DIVERGED. SO RELATIONSHIPS IN VALUES CONVERGED;
RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE PEOPLE DIVERGED. I WILL EXPLAIN SHORTLY. FIRST JUST
ENUMERATE THE PHASES. PHASE TWO: LET US SAY APPROXIMATELY FOR NEATNESS, THE
SECOND HALF OF THE 20th CENTURY. RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN EURO-AMERICAN VALUES AND
TRADITIONAL ISLAMIC VALUES BEGAN TO DIVERGE. THEIR VALUES BEGAN TO DIVERGE AS
AMERICA BECAME MORE ETHICALLY AND SEXUALLY LIBERTARIAN. SEX, ALCOHOL AND DRUGS
WERE ASCENDING IN AMERICA. THE IMPORTANCE OF RELIGION DETERIORATED MARKEDLY IN
EUROPE, THOUGH IT'S RELATIVELY STRONG AS CHRISTIANITY GOES IN THE UNITED STATES.
THE STATUS OF WOMEN BEGAN TO IMPROVE SIGNIFICANTLY IN THE WESTERN WORLD. BUT
ALSO IN THE SECOND HALF OF THE 20th CENTURY-- THE SECOND HALF IS THE OPPOSITE OF
THE FIRST HALF. THE SECOND HALF, THE VALUES WERE DIVERGING. WHAT AMERICANS
VALUED AND WHAT MUSLIMS VALUED, WHAT AMERICANS BELIEVED IN AND WHAT MUSLIMS
BELIEVED IN WERE BEGINNING TO DIVERGE. ON THE OTHER HAND, RELATIONS BETWEEN
AMERICAN OR EURO-AMERICAN PEOPLE AND MUSLIM PEOPLE BEGAN TO CONVERGE. SO IN THE
SECOND HALF OF THE 20th CENTURY, THE RELATIONS WERE GETTING BETTER; VALUES WERE
GETTING MORE DIFFERENT. RELATIONS BETWEEN THE PEOPLE WERE GETTING BETTER. PHASE
THREE: SUBSTANTIALLY WHERE WE ARE NOW, RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN AMERICAN VALUES AND
TRADITIONAL ISLAMIC VALUES HAVE CONTINUED TO DIVERGE, SO WHAT THE TRUE BELIEF
SYSTEMS STOOD FOR WERE MORE AND MORE DIFFERENT. BUT SINCE SEPTEMBER 11th, 2001,
THE TREND OF TOTAL CONVERGENCE BETWEEN AMERICAN PEOPLE AND MUSLIM PEOPLE HAS
EITHER BEEN INTERRUPTED OR HAS BEEN REVERSED. MOST AMERICANS AND MUSLIMS BOTH IN
THE UNITED STATES AND WORLDWIDE ARE REGRETTABLY IN THE PROCESS OF BEING PULLED
APART. THE PEOPLE ARE MOVING APART; THEIR VALUES WILL CONTINUE TO MOVE APART.
OKAY. THE FOURTH PHASE: THIS IS THE FUTURE. IF I SAY THE THIRD PHASE IS NOW,
WHAT'S THE FOURTH PHASE? THE FOURTH PHASE ARE PROSPECTS. HOW DO WE GET OUT OF
WHERE WE ARE? IT'S AN OPTIMISTIC SCENARIO THAT I BELONG TO, A REPORT WHICH
REQUIRES THE FOURTH PHASE TO INCLUDE SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES IN AMERICAN VALUES TO A
GREATER HUMANENESS AND SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES IN THE MUSLIM WORLD TOWARD CATCHING
UP WITH THE MARCH OF HISTORY. WE'LL EXPLORE THOSE IN SLIGHTLY GREATER DETAIL.
FIRST PHASE: REMEMBER, THE FIRST PHASE IS THE VALUES OF THE MUSLIM WORLD AND
THE VALUES OF UNITED STATES AND EUROPE WERE SIMILAR IN THE FIRST HALF OF THE
20th CENTURY. SO YOU LOOK AT THOSE VALUES. THERE WERE IN THE 1920s, BEFORE THE
1920s, YOU HAVE SITUATIONS WHERE ISSUES OF MODESTY, PROPRIETY OR FAMILIES, THE
WESTERN AND THE MUSLIM WORLD SHARED A LOT. 1920s, AN INCREASE, ALMOST 50% OF
WOMEN WHO HAD PREMARITAL SEX, BUT THIS WAS STILL A PERIOD OF CONSIDERABLE
RESTRAINT ON SEXUAL BEHAVIOR. THERE WERE EVEN LAWS AGAINST SEX OUTSIDE MARRIAGE
IN SOME STATES. IN THE MUSLIM WORLD, SEX BEFORE AND OUTSIDE MARRIAGE WERE
STRONGLY CONDEMNED, WITH SOCIETIES EVEN HAVING HONOR KILLINGS FOR DAUGHTERS WHO
STRAYED SEXUALLY. HOMOSEXUAL ACTS, ESPECIALLY MALE HOMOSEXUALITY, WAS
CRIMINALIZED IN BOTH THE WESTERN WORLD AND THE MUSLIM WORLD. THERE ARE NUMEROUS
EXAMPLES OF LAWS THAT MADE SUCH ACTIVITIES ILLEGAL, AND SOME OF THESE LAWS HAVE
BEEN SUBSTANTIALLY ELIMINATED, ALTHOUGH MORES ARE SLOWER TO CHANGE THAN THE
LAWS. SO IN GENERAL, RULES OF SEXUALITY WITHIN THE WESTERN WORLD AND RULES OF
SEXUALITY WITHIN THE MUSLIM WORLD WERE VERY SIMILAR. GENDER AND FAMILY: THE
INTER-WAR YEARS, BETWEEN WORLD WAR I AND WORLD WAR II, THE FAMILY IN AMERICA WAS
STILL AS SACROSANCT AT IT WAS IN THE MUSLIM WORLD. UNMARRIED COUPLES LIVING
TOGETHER, BABIES BORN OUT OF WEDLOCK SUFFERED FROM SOCIAL STIGMA AND THE IDEA OF
SAME-SEX MARRIAGES OR EVEN CIVIL UNIONS HAD NOT BEEN CONCEIVED. IN THE UNITED
STATES, WOMEN DIDN'T GET DIVORCED UNTIL AFTER A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT IN
1920. SO DON'T YOU THINK THE IDEA THAT WOMEN IN THE MUSLIM WORLD ARE
MARGINALIZED, REMEMBER THAT IN THE UNITED STATES IT'S A 20th CENTURY PHENOMENON
OF HAVING THE VOTE APPROVED. THE COMING WAS SOMETIMES AS SLOW AS COMING TO THE
WESTERN WORLD AS THE MUSLIM WORLD. FOR MANY IN THE PERIOD, THE IDEA OF A FEMALE
PRESIDENT WAS UNTHINKABLE. IN 1936, THE PERCENTAGE OF AMERICANS WHO WOULD VOTE
FOR A WOMAN IF SHE WERE QUALIFIED TO BE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WAS ABOUT
31%. IN THE ECONOMIC SECTORS OF SOCIETY IN 1936, ONLY 18% OF AMERICANS APPROVED
OF AN AMERICAN WOMAN WORKING EVEN IF SHE DIDN'T HAVE TO DO SO FOR ECONOMIC
REASONS. SO THESE WERE INHIBITIONS, OPERATED IN THE MUSLIM WORLD AND SEEMED TO
BE OPERATING IN THE WEST. SO WHAT IS AT STAKE THERE ON THE ISSUE OF WOMEN'S
LIBERATION? THE UNITED STATES AND MUSLIM WORLD WERE ON THE SAME STAGE OF
RELATIVE SEXISM IN THE FIRST HALF OF THE 20th CENTURY. AND THEN THE TEMPORAL
ISSUE OF CONVERGENCE, ONE IMPORTANT VALUE WAS THE BAN OF ALCOHOL IN THE UNITED
STATES. THIS WAS NEO-ISLAMIC, FOR THE PROHIBITION OF ALCOHOL WAS FORCED BY
STATES IN THE UNITED STATES. THEN A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AGAINST ALCOHOL
NEEDED A TWO-THIRDS MAJORITY IN CONGRESS AND APPROVAL BY THREE-QUARTERS OF THE
STATES. SUCH A CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGE WAS RATIFIED ON JANUARY 29, 1919, AND WENT
INTO EFFECT ON JANUARY 29th, 1920 OF THE 18th AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES
CONSTITUTION. ON THE ISSUE OF ALCOHOL, THE UNITED STATES BECAME ALMOST ISLAMIC.
THE DEATH PENALTY, ANOTHER AREA OF CONVERGENCE BETWEEN ISLAMIC VALUES AND
AMERICAN VALUES HAS BEEN THE ACCEPTANCE OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT AS ONE OF THE
ANSWERS TO HUMAN DEPRAVITY. THE MOST CONTROVERSIAL ELEMENTS OF THE SHARIA LAW
ARE THE ISLAMIC PHYSICAL PUNISHMENTS FOR CRIMINAL OFFENDERS. ONE OF THE
PRINCIPLES THAT THE AMERICAN JUDICIAL SYSTEM CONTINUES TO SHARE WITH MUSLIM
OPINION IN THE WESTERN WORLD IS THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE DEATH PENALTY. THE MOST
CONTROVERSIAL ISLAMIC PUBLICATION OF THE DEATH PENALTY RELATES TO THE SEXUAL
OFFENSE OF ADULTERY AND THE CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES IT'S A CAPITAL OFFENSE UNDER
THE SHARIA. THE MOST CONTROVERSIAL AMERICAN APPLICATION OF THE DEATH PENALTY,
LITERALLY UNTIL LAST YEAR, AND MAYBE STILL NOW, IS RELATING THE DEATH PENALTY TO
THE MENTALLY RETARDED AND TO THE EXECUTION OF JUVENILE OFFENDERS, SO THAT THE
WORST AMERICAN APPLICATION IS ON RETARDED OFFENDERS AND JUVENILE OFFENDERS. THE
WORST ISLAMIC APPLICATION WAS ON SEXUAL OFFENSES AS CAPITAL OFFENSES. ON ISSUES
OF RACE, ISLAM WAS, OF COURSE, AHEAD OF THE WESTERN WORLD. YOU DIDN'T HAVE
RACIAL SEGREGATION WESTERN STYLE IN THE FIRST HALF OF THE 20th CENTURY, WHICH
WAS VERY TERRIBLE IN THE UNITED STATES, AND THEN ATTITUDE TOWARD OTHER
RELIGIONS: CONSIDERABLE DIVERGENCE. CATHOLICS SUFFERED IN THE U.S. IN THE FIRST
HALF OF THE 20th CENTURY. JEWS SUFFERED, LET ALONE MUSLIMS. SO ATTITUDES IN
VALUES WERE SIMILAR; ATTITUDES TO THE PEOPLE WERE HOSTILE. ATTITUDES TO VALUES
CONVERGED; ATTITUDES TO PEOPLE DIVERGED. IN THE SECOND HALF OF THE 20th CENTURY,
SEXUALITY BEGAN TO CHANGE IN THE AMERICAS. AMERICA BECAME MORE SEXUALLY
LIBERTARIAN. THE EROSION OF SOCIAL DISAPPROVAL OF PRE-MARITAL SEX AND EXTRAMARTIAL SEX, ADVANCES IN CONTRACEPTION, SEXUAL LIBERATION OF THE '60s, THE
INVENTION OF THE BIRTH CONTROL PILL, USE OF SEXUALITY IN ADVERTISING, THE DEMAND
FOR UTILIZATION OF FEMALE BEAUTY TO PROMOTE MERCHANDISE. WHILE AMERICAN CULTURE
DOES GIVE GREATER FREEDOM TO WOMEN THAN DOES MUSLIM CULTURE, AMERICAN CULTURE
EXTENDS LESS DIGNITY TO WOMEN THAN DOES MUSLIM CULTURE. SONS IN AMERICA RESPECT
THEIR MOTHERS LESS THAN SONS IN THE MUSLIM WORLD, BUT HUSBANDS IN AMERICA
RESPECT THEIR WIVES MORE THAN HUSBANDS IN THE MUSLIM WORLD. BUT WITH WOMEN'S
LIBERATION, AMERICA HAS NOW OUTSTRIPPED THE MUSLIM WORLD BY GIVING MORE
LIBERTIES TO WOMEN. BUT BY EMPOWERING WOMEN, THE ISSUE IS LESS CLEAR-CUT. THE
UNITED STATES HAVE NEVER HAD A FEMALE PRESIDENT, YET TWO OF THE MOST POPULAR
MUSLIM COUNTRIES-- PAKISTAN AND BANGLADESH-- HAVE HAD WOMEN CHIEF NATIONAL
EXECUTIVES: BENAZIR BHUTTO, WHO HEADED TWO GOVERNMENTS IN PAKISTAN, AND KHALEDA
ZIA IN BANGLADESH. BOTH THE OPPOSITION AND GOVERNMENT ARE LED BY WOMEN. TURKEY
HAS A WOMAN PRIME MINISTER, TANSU CILLER, AND INDONESIA, THE MOST POPULACE
MUSLIM COUNTRY OF THEM ALL, HAS A WOMAN PRESIDENT, MEGAWATI SUKARNOPUTRI, WHO
STEPPED DOWN LAST YEAR. MUSLIM COUNTRIES SEEM TO BE AHEAD IN FEMALE EMPOWERMENT,
THOUGH STILL BEHIND IN FEMALE LIBERATION. FOUR MUSLIM COUNTRIES HAVE EXPERIENCED
HIGHEST FEMALE LEADERSHIP LONG BEFORE THE UNITED STATES HAS HAD A WOMAN
PRESIDENT, FRANCE HAS HAD A WOMAN PRESIDENT, RUSSIA HAS HAD A WOMAN PRESIDENT,
ITALY HAS HAD A WOMAN PRESIDENT, OR GERMANY HAS HAD A FEMALE CHANCELLOR. SO FOUR
MUSLIM COUNTRIES HAVE ALREADY BEATEN THE WEST TO THE PINNACLE OF POLITICAL POWER
FOR WOMEN WHEN NONE OF THESE MAJOR WESTERN COUNTRIES HAVE OPENED THE DOORS TO
SUPREME POLITICAL POWER TO WOMEN. ON ALCOHOL AND DRUGS, OF COURSE MUCH OF THE
WEST HAS BEEN LIBERATED EVEN MORE. AND, FORTUNATELY, MY TEACHER IN OXFORD SAID
THINGS THAT MADE ME REFRAME HIS BELIEF IN THE FOLLOWING: THE SINS OF THE
POWERFUL, THE SINS OF THE POWERFUL ACQUIRE SOME OF THE PRESTIGE OF POWER. THE
SINS OF THE POWERFUL ACQUIRE SOME OF THE PRESTIGE OF THE POWER. THE POWERFUL IS
THE WESTERN WORLD NOW AND MANY OF THEIR SINS ARE SPREADING IN THE MUSLIM WORLD.
SO AT THE TIME WHEN MUCH OF THE MUSLIM WORLD ABOUT MORE ALCOHOL, UNFORTUNATELY,
MUCH OF IT HAS PENETRATED. DRUGS ARE NOT AS BAD AS THEY ARE IN THE WEST, BUT THE
MUSLIM WORLD IS VULNERABLE TO THE SINS OF THE POWERFUL. BUYING GUNS, INVENTED BY
THE WEST AND SOLD BY THE WEST, MUSLIM WORLD, HARDLY ANY OF THEM MANUFACTURE
THEM. IT'S PART OF BUSINESS AND THE BOTTOM LINE IN WESTERN ARMS TRADE. AND ON
THE DEATH PENALTY, AMERICA IS STILL DIVIDED ON THE DEATH PENALTY BETWEEN STATES
WHICH REGARD IT AS CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT AND OTHER STATES WHICH REGARD IT
AS A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH PHILOSOPHY. SO IN GENERAL THE SITUATION IN THE SECOND
HALF OF THE 20th CENTURY DID APPEAR TO IMPROVE RELATIONS BETWEEN AMERICANS, AS
AMERICANS BECAME MORE LIBERTARIAN, AND IT WAS ALSO BECOMING MORE LIBERAL IN
ATTITUDES TOWARD OTHER RELIGIONS, MORE TOLERANT IN ATTITUDES TOWARD OTHER
CULTURES. SO THE SECOND HALF OF THE 20th CENTURY, WHICH IS PART OF THE HALF
WHERE MY OWN FAMILY HAS COME TO LIVE IN THE WEST-- NOT THE WHOLE HALF BUT THE
LAST QUARTER CENTURY-- HAVE SEEN ENORMOUS CHANGES WHICH HAVE OCCURRED BETWEEN
RELATIONS OF PEOPLE. VALUES ARE DIVERGING AND PEOPLE ARE GETTING CLOSER
TOGETHER. BEFORE I EVER CAME HERE, I WOULDN'T HAVE DREAMT THAT I WOULD RECEIVE A
LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES ON THE FAST OF RAMADAN, WISHING
ME A BLESSED FAST OF RAMADAN. UNDER THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION, MUSLIMS RECEIVED
LETTERS FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WISHING THEM A BLESSED FAST OF
RAMADAN. HILARY CLINTON HOSTED AN EID UL-FITR CELEBRATION IN THE WHITE HOUSE,
BOTH IN 1996 AND 1998. VICE-PRESIDENT AL GORE VISITED A MOSQUE IN THE FALL OF
1995. THE FIRST TWO MUSLIM CHAPLAINS IN THE UNITED STATES ARMY, A MUSLIM
CHAPLAIN IN THE U.S. NAVY WERE APPOINTED UNDER THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION TO
SERVE SOME 10,000 MUSLIMS IN THE U.S. ARMED FORCES. SO THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN
UNTHINKABLE JUST A COUPLE OF DECADES PREVIOUSLY. SO VALUES ARE GETTING DISTANT
BUT PEOPLE ARE BEGINNING TO BE MORE TOLERANT. SO THE CLINTON GESTURES TOWARD
MUSLIM WAS SUFFICIENTLY HIGH-PROFILE THAT A HOSTILE ARTICLE IN "THE WALL STREET
JOURNAL" IN MARCH OF 1996 RAISED THE SPECTRE OF "FRIENDS OF HAMAS IN THE WHITE
HOUSE," A LEGEND THAT SOME OF PRESIDENT CLINTON'S MUSLIM GUESTS WERE FRIENDS OF
ARAB TERRORISTS AND SUPPORTERS OF THE PALESTINIAN MOVEMENT. THE CRITIC IN "THE
WALL STREET JOURNAL," STEVE EMERSON, HAD A LONG RECORD OF HOSTILITY TOWARD U.S.
MUSLIMS. HIS TELEVISION SERIES ON PBS, "JIHAD IN AMERICA," ALLEGED THAT ALL
TERRORIST ATTACKS ABROAD WERE ULTIMATELY PARTIALLY FUNDED BY MUSLIMS IN THE
UNITED STATES, OF COURSE A PREPOSTEROUS ASSERTION. SO THERE ARE PEOPLE OPPOSED
TO THE OPEN SOCIETY WHO CRITICIZED THESE GESTURES MADE BY THE AMERICAN POLITICAL
ESTABLISHMENT TO COUNT MUSLIMS AS PART OF AMERICAN SOCIETY RATHER THAN AS AN
ALIEN INTRUSION. ONE OF THE REASONS WHY I WOULD HAVE WISHED DANIEL PIPES WOULD
BE HERE BECAUSE HE'S MORE LIKE STEVE EMERSON, ENEMIES OF THE OPEN SOCIETY. SO
ISLAM FALLS, PEOPLE WHO HATE ISLAM, BUT HE'LL TELL YOU THAT HIMSELF IN ANOTHER
COUPLE OF WEEKS OR SO. SO IN GENERAL, PEOPLE ARE MOVING TOGETHER. THERE WERE
HOPES-- THE WEST AND THE MUSLIM WORLD. THERE WERE HOPES ALSO ABROAD OF PEOPLE
GETTING TOGETHER. I'M A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR THE OXFORD CENTER OF
ISLAMIC STUDIES, OXFORD UNIVERSITY IN ENGLAND. THE PATRON FOR THE CENTER OF
OXFORD ISLAMIC STUDIES IS THE HEIR TO THE THRONE OF ENGLAND, PRINCE CHARLES.
EVEN AFTER SEPTEMBER 11th, WE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES WERE INVITED TO
HIS OFFICIAL RESIDENCE FOR DINNER WITH THE HEIR TO THE BRITISH THRONE. THE MAIN
DENOMINATIONS OF CHRISTIANITY HAVE BECOME MORE MUSLIM-FRIENDLY, ALTHOUGH THE
MARGINAL GROUPS OF CHRISTIANITY HAVE NEVER BEEN MORE ISLAMOPHOBIC. IN THE DAYS
OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND, PRINCE CHARLES WILL BECOME THE SECULAR HEAD OF THE
CHURCH OF ENGLAND IF HE BECOMES KING, AND LAST YEAR HE WAS AWARDED A SPECIAL
ISLAMIC PRIZE BY THE SULTAN OF BRUNEI FOR HIS CONTRIBUTION TO CIVILIZATION AND
THE DIALOGUE BETWEEN THEM. AND PRINCE CHARLES SAYS HIS OATH OF OFFICE, IF HE'S
ALLOWED, WILL NOT BE DEFENDER OF "THE" FAITH, NOT THE CHRISTIAN FAITH ANGLICAN
STYLE, BUT THE DEFENDER OF FAITH AS A HUMAN EXPERIENCE, WHICH WOULD BE MORE
INCLUSIVE, ET CETERA. THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH WAS MILITANTLY OPPOSED TO THE
IRAQ WAR. I'M TELLING YOU THAT THE MAINSTREAM CHRISTIANS HAVE-- THEIR POPE WAS
WORRIED ABOUT WHERE THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION WAS TAKING THE WEST AND WAS WORRIED
ABOUT THE IMPACT OF THE IRAQ WAR ON CLASHES OF CIVILIZATIONS. SO ALL THIS WAS
VERY GOOD, BUT THERE ARE SIGNS OF SLIGHT LOSSES SINCE SEPTEMBER 11th. THIS IS
THE THIRD PHASE YOU'RE IN NOW. THE VALUES BETWEEN ISLAM AND THE WEST CONTINUE TO
DIVERGE. NOW, AT LEAST THIS PART OF THE WESTERN WORLD HAS STARTED TALKING ABOUT
SAME-SEX MARRIAGES. IT GIVES MUSLIM SHUDDERS, YOU SEE, AS THEY HAVE A MUCH MORE
TRADITIONALIST SYSTEM OF THOUGHT. AND SECONDLY, WHEN THE UNITED STATES WAS
DEBATING CLINTON'S MISADVENTURES WITH MONICA AND THE POWER ESTABLISHMENT SAID,
"IT'S NOT THE ADULTERY, NO; IT'S THE LYING," THAT'S A VERY AMERICAN POSITION.
IT'S NOT THE ADULTERY; IT'S THE LYING-- IT'S NOT AN ISLAMIC POSITION THAT WOULD
REGARD ADULTERY AS A LESSER SIN THAN LYING TO DEFEND THE HONOR OF THE WOMAN...
IT'S NOT AN ISLAMIC POSITION, IS NOT EVEN A EUROPEAN POSITION UNTIL RECENTLY.
PEOPLE OF HONOR LIE TO DEFEND THE HONOR OF THE WOMAN. AND NOW THEY SAY, "NO,
IT'S NOT THE ADULTERY. HE CAN DO WHAT HE LIKES. BUT HE SHOULDN'T HAVE LIED."
THAT WAS A DIVERGENCE TAKING PLACE. AT THE SAME TIME, CLINTON BECAME ONE OF THE
MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO MAKING ISLAM PART OF THE AMERICAN FABRIC RATHER THAN AN
INTRUSION INTO THE AMERICAN EXPERIENCE. BUT, ON THE OTHER HAND, THE SUSPICION
HAS BEGUN. SEPTEMBER 11th HAS AFFECTED US ALL. IT'S TRUE THAT I'M STILL ABLE TO
GO AROUND SPEAKING OUT MY MIND BECAUSE THE UNITED STATES MAY BE-- MAY HAVE
DETERIORATED SINCE SEPTEMBER 11th; MAYBE IS A LESS FREE AMERICAN THAN IT WAS
WHEN YOU WERE BORN AND WHEN I FIRST ARRIVED, BUT IT IS STILL A DEMOCRACY. BUT
IT'S A SUSPICIOUS DEMOCRACY. I WAS DETAINED FOR A NUMBER OF HOURS, WAS
INTERROGATED BY THREE SETS OF INTERROGATORS, THE LAST OF WHICH WHO WAS
DEFINITELY ANTI-TERRORIST TASK FORCE. THEY GAVE ME A CARD SAYING ANTI-TERRORIST
TASK FORCE AND THEY ASKED ME QUESTIONS LIKE-- ESPECIALLY THE FIRST SET, YOU
KNOW, WHETHER I BELIEVED IN JIHAD AND WHAT WAS MEANT BY JIHAD, SO I GIVE THEM
JIHAD 101-- (Laughter) -- YOU KNOW SUBJECT OF JIHAD, INTELLECTUAL JIHAD... ET
CETERA, ET CETERA. AND THEN THEY HELD ME THERE ALL THIS TIME AND GAVE ME ONE
PHONE CALL. I CALLED HOME. I WAS QUITE SURE THAT THEY WOULDN'T ALLOW ME BACK TO
THE UNITED STATES. I WAS REALLY BEGINNING TO CALCULATE THE REMAINING YEARS OF MY
LIFE, YOU SEE... WHERE DO I GO NEXT? SO I CALLED HOME. MY WIFE WAS UNFORTUNATELY
NOT IN. THERE WAS A YOUNG WOMAN THERE WHO TOOK THE MESSAGE. I SAID "I DON'T KNOW
WHEN I WILL ARRIVE HOME, I'M NOT EVEN SURE IF I WILL ARRIVE HOME," SHE THOUGHT I
WAS COMPLAINING ABOUT THE WEATHER. SO FORTUNATELY WHEN SHE CALLED MY WIFE WHERE
SHE WAS AND SAID, "BUT HE SAID THAT WAS THE ONLY PHONE HE WAS ALLOWED," SO THAT
PIECE OF INFORMATION ALERTED MY WIFE THIS HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE WEATHER;
THAT IT MUST BE SOMETHING VERY SERIOUS. I HAVE ONE SON WHO'S A PROFESSOR OF LAW,
ANOTHER WHO WORKS FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT; THEY HAVE FRIENDS. AND BEFORE
LONG, THESE PEOPLE IN MIAMI WERE RECEIVING PHONE CALLS, AND IT ENDED WELL. IT
ENDED WELL. (Laughter) BUT IT'S SILLY. I WAS PROBABLY THERE-- WHEN I ARRIVED, I
WAS ONE OF THE OLDEST PASSENGERS, AND THERE HUNDREDS OF PASSENGERS. BY THE TIME
THEY LET ME GO, I WAS THE ONLY PASSENGER. THE OLDEST PASSENGER WAS THE LAST TO
BE LET GO. ON THE OTHER HAND, THEY HAD EITHER FOUND OUT WHO I WAS OR RECEIVED
PHONE CALLS AND THE LAST ONES, THE ANTI-TERRORIST PEOPLE, THEY WERE EXTREMELY
WELL-INFORMED BECAUSE I WASN'T COMING FROM AFGHANISTAN... WHY EVERY YEAR-- I
ENTER THE UNITED STATES AT LEAST SIX TIMES BECAUSE I GO OUT OF THE UNITED STATES
AT LEAST SIX TIMES. BUT WHY SUDDENLY THIS INTERROGATION? AT THE END I WAS COMING
FROM THE CARIBBEAN. BUT THE MAN SAID, "IN TRINIDAD, DID YOU SEE A SCENE--" THIS
IS A PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL WHO CAPTURED THE WHOLE CABINET OF THE COUNTRY ABOUT A
DECADE AGO AND HELD THEM RANSOM, AND HE WAS A BLACK MUSLIM TRINIDADIAN, AND HE
SAID, "DID YOU SEE THE SCENE?" I SAID, "NO, I DIDN'T, BUT I TRIED." "SO YOU
TRIED? "YES." "WHY?" "I TEACH COURSES ON ISLAM AND WORLD AFFAIRS. I TEACH
COURSES ON ISLAM AMONG BLACK PEOPLE. IT'S MY BUSINESS TO LOOK FOR SCENES OF THIS
WORLD." I INTERROGATED HIM. AT THE OF THE DAY THEY NOT ONLY LET ME GO BUT THEY
WERE ALMOST APOLOGETIC BUT NOT QUITE APOLOGETIC. THEY WERE APOLOGETIC FOR MY
SPENDING SO MUCH TIME BUT NOT APOLOGETIC FOR HAVING BEEN INTERROGATED. AND THE
SUPERIOR OFFICERS REALLY GOT THE JUNIOR OFFICERS TO BOOK A HOTEL, BOOK ME MY
FLIGHT THE NEXT DAY, ACCOMPANY ME TO THE HOTEL, CHECK ME IN AND EVEN GIVE ME
$25. (Laughter) SO THERE'S HOPE; THERE'S HOPE. THERE'S A SENSE OF CONCERN. SO
THERE'S SUSPICION AND THINGS ARE MORE DIFFICULT. MANY INNOCENT PEOPLE HAVE BEEN
KILLED. MANY MORE INNOCENT PEOPLE HAVE BEEN KILLED BY THE UNITED STATES AND
ISRAEL THAN BY MUSLIM TERRORISTS, BY FAR. BY FAR MANY MORE MUSLIM PEOPLE, IN
THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS, HAVE BEEN KILLED BY THE UNITED STATES AND ISRAEL THAN
BY MUSLIM TERRORISTS. SO YOU NEVER HEAR ABOUT KILLING THE INNOCENT AS LONG AS
WE'RE IN UNIFORM; IT'S FINE. BELIEVE ME, YOU CAN CALL THEM SOMETHING OTHER THAN
INNOCENT CIVILIANS, YEAH? BUT THE KILLING THAT'S BEEN GOING ON IN IRAQ IS MOVING
INTO THE 100,000. THIS IS FAR MORE THAN WERE EVER KILLED ACROSS THE LAST 20
YEARS BY ANY TERRORISTS ADDED TOGETHER. SO AMERICAN AND ISRAELI RESPONSES TO
TERRORISM HAVE LED TO THE DEATHS OF PEOPLE ON THE WEST BANK, GAZA,
AFGHANISTAN... AND OCCUPATION, THREE OF THEM-- PALESTINE AND IRAQ AND THE
KURDISTAN-- OCCUPATION. ESSENTIALLY, IT'S PARTS OF COUNTRIES THAT ARE UNDER
SEPARATION, INCLUDING CHECHNYA IN RUSSIA; IN INDIA; KOSOVO IN WHAT USED TO BE
YUGOSLAVIA, AND AGAIN THE BOSNIAN PHENOMENON. VERY OFTEN MUSLIM ARE PEOPLE MORE
SINNED AGAINST THAN SINNING. ONLY HAVE TO PUT ON YOUR COMPUTER AND TOTAL THE
VICTIMS OF THOSE SOCIETIES THAT I HAVE TOLD YOU AND ADD UP IN RELATION TO WHAT
MUSLIM TERRORISTS OF ALL DENOMINATIONS AND ALL COUNTRY HAVE PERPETRATED. THEY'RE
A FRACTION. THEY'RE A FRACTION OF WHAT MUSLIMS HAVE KILLED. SO THE NAZIS LEARNED
QUITE EARLY IF YOU REPEAT A LIE OFTEN ENOUGH, PEOPLE START BELIEVING IT. THE
NAZIS TOLD MANY LIES ABOUT JEWS AND GERMAN GENTILES BEGAN TO BELIEVE THE LIES,
AND IT CONTRIBUTED TO THE HOLOCAUST. AMERICANS IN POWER TODAY HAVE TOLD LIES
ABOUT WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION IN THE AMERICAN PUBLIC SQUARE AND THE AMERICAN
ELECTORATE HAS SUSPENDED ITS DISBELIEF. NOW THOSE IN POWER ARE TRYING THE SAME
PUBLICATIONS AGAINST IRAN. AFTER THEIR EXPERIENCE IN IRAQ, THEY WOULD NOT DARE
TO OCCUPY IRAN. ONE OF THE THINGS WHICH SOMETIMES BRINGS TEARS TO MY EYES WHEN
THEY SHOW THOSE PICTURES OF AMERICANS KILLED IN IRAQ DURING THE NEWS HOUR IS
SAYING, "THEY LOOK LIKE MY STUDENTS. THEY LOOK LIKE YOU FOLKS," AND IT'S A LIST
OF THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN KILLED: 21, 19, 23, ET CETERA. THE ONLY CONSOLATION FOR
ME, THOUGH NOT FOR THEIR PARENTS, OF COURSE, IS THAT "BECAUSE YOU HAVE DIED,
YOUNG MAN, YOUR COUNTRY WILL BE LESS RECKLESS ABOUT STARTING ANOTHER WAR. YOU
HAVE GIVEN YOUR LIFE NOT JUST FOR PATRIOTISM; YOU HAVE GIVEN YOUR LIFE AGAINST
RECKLESS DECISIONS TO GO TO WAR. BECAUSE OF YOU," I SAY TO THESE FACES, "IT'S
MOST UNLIKELY THEY'LL ATTEMPT TO OCCUPY IRAN. THEY MAY BOMB IT; THEY WON'T
OCCUPY IT. BECAUSE OF YOU, THEY WON'T ATTEMPT TO OCCUPY SYRIA. THEY MAY BOMB IT
BECAUSE IT'S EASY TO BOMB FROM THE AIR, FROM THE AIR. YOU HAVE NOT DIED IN VAIN,
YOUNG MAN OR YOUNG WOMAN, NOR HAVE YOU DIED JUST FOR YOUR COUNTRY; YOU HAVE DIED
FOR HUMANITY. YOU HAVE DIED TO PUT RESTRAINTS ON ABSOLUTE POWER WHEN IT IS IN
THE HANDS OF PEOPLE LIKE THE UNITED STATES AND THIS ADMINISTRATION." SO IN
GENERAL, THINGS ARE NOT YET GOOD BUT THERE IS HOPE THAT THEY MAY IMPROVE IF
CERTAIN THINGS HAPPEN. THE UNITED STATES IS INDEED AN EMPIRE BUT INTERNALLY, IT
IS A DEMOCRACY. THE BEST WAY OF CONTROLLING THE EMPIRE IS THROUGH THE DEMOCRACY,
AND WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN IN THE DEMOCRACY BEFORE THAT HAPPENS? FIRST, COMPARING
THIS EMPIRE WITH PREVIOUS ONES: I'M A PRODUCT OF THE FIRST EMPIRES, EUROPEAN
EMPIRES, BECAUSE I WAS BORN IN COLONIAL KENYA AND EDUCATED IN GREAT BRITAIN.
THEIR EMPIRE WAS AN EMPIRE OF OCCUPATION, PAX BRITANNICA. THE UNITED STATES IS
AN EMPIRE OF CONTROL, PAX AMERICANA. EUROPEAN EMPIRES HAD MULTIPLE CENTERS:
LONDON, PARIS, LISBON, BRUSSELS. THE AMERICAN EMPIRE IS UNI-CENTER, BASED IN
WASHINGTON, D.C. EUROPEAN EMPIRES USED MINIMUM FORCE, ECONOMY OF FORCE. AMERICAN
EMPIRE IS PREDICATED ON A SHOW OF MASSIVE MILITARY FORCE. EUROPEAN EMPIRES WERE
PREDICATED THAT THE COLONIES WERE UNDER EUROPEAN SOVEREIGNTY AND THEREFORE THE
EUROPEAN COLONIAL POWER WAS LEGALLY ACCOUNTABLE IF THINGS WENT WRONG. THE
AMERICAN SYSTEM IS BASED ON IMPUNITY, SOVEREIGN IMPUNITY. BECAUSE YOU'RE
OCCUPIED, IT'S NOTHING TO DO WITH ME IF-- WITH ME; IT'S THIS IRAQI GOVERNMENT
WHICH HAS BEEN ELECTED, ET CETERA. IN GENERAL, SOMETHING HAS TO HAPPEN
INTERNALLY IN THE UNITED STATES IF WE ARE TO CONTROL THE AMERICAN EMPIRE.
FINALLY, THE MUSLIM WORLD, WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN THERE? THERE'S ORTHODOX ISLAM,
WHICH BELIEVES IN INTERPRETING OBSERVANCES AND TRADITIONS VERY STRICTLY AND
BELIEVES IN A GOD OF JUSTICE. THERE'S MODERNIST ISLAM, WHICH SEEKS TO FIND
ISLAMIC BELIEFS CLOSER TO MODERN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, BELIEVES THAT GOD IS A GOD
OF ENLARGEMENT AND MUSLIMS SHOULD CATCH UP WITH SCIENCE AND THEN LIBERAL ISLAM.
THIS IS CONCERNED WITH UPDATED ISLAM SCIENTIFICALLY BUT WHAT IS MUCH MORE ABOUT
UPDATING ISLAM ETHICALLY, MAKING SURE THE VALUES OF THE MUSLIM WORLD KEEP PACE
WITH CHANGING STANDARDS OF BEHAVIOR. THERE IS A MAJOR CONFRONTATION BETWEEN
THESE THREE FORCES OF ISLAM. ORTHODOX ISLAM CLING TO THE PAST; MODERNIST ISLAM
SEEKS RECONCILIATION WITH SCIENCE; LIBERAL ISLAM SEEKS REVISIONS IN ETHICS. A
VERY INTERESTING EVENT OCCURRED WITH THE FIRST ONE JUST LAST WEEK. A WOMAN
CALLED AMINA WADUD, AN AFRICAN-AMERICAN WOMAN, SHE LED JUM'AH PRAYERS ON FRIDAY,
THE MOST IMPORTANT PRAYER OF THE WEEK. THIS IS A WOMAN LEADING A PRAYER OF THE
WEEK. THE MOSQUE WOULD NOT LET HER DO IT. SHE DID IT IN A PROTESTANT CHURCH. SO
A QUESTION: IS SHE THE ROSA PARKS OF MODERN ISLAM? ON THE BUS OF ISLAMIC
DESTINY, IS SHE REFUSING TO TAKE A BACKSEAT AS A FEMALE PASSENGER? ROSA PARKS'
DEFIANCE, YOU WILL REMEMBER, HELPED IGNITE THE MONTGOMERY BUS BOYCOTT AND THE
CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES. IS AMINA WADUD'S DEFIANCE LEADING
FRIDAY CONGREGATION, AS A WOMAN, IS THIS THE FIRST SHOT IN A MUSLIM REFORMATION
ON THE GENDER QUESTION? WELL, IT'S TOO EARLY TO ASSESS THE HISTORICAL
SIGNIFICANCE OF A JUM'AH PRAYER LED BY A SINGLE MUSLIM WOMAN IN THE CHRISTIAN
PROTESTANT CHURCH. BUT WE KNOW THIS IS NOT THE ONLY SITUATION THAT REQUIRES
CHANGE FOR GENDER EQUALITY. ALL THREE ABRAHAMIC RELIGIONS-- JUDAISM,
CHRISTIANITY AND ISLAM-- HAVE BEEN SLOW IN RESPONDING TO FEMALE LEADERSHIP IN
RELIGION. UNTIL THE 21st CENTURY, THE MUSLIMS HAVE NOT BEEN UNIQUE IN DENYING
ULTIMATE RELIGIOUS LEADERSHIP TO WOMEN. FEMALE PRIESTS IN CHRISTIANITY AND
FEMALE RABBIS IN JUDAISM ARE PHENOMENA OF RELATIVELY RECENT TIMES AND ARE STILL
HOTLY DEBATED. A FEMALE POPE IN THE VATICAN IS, FOR THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE,
INCONCEIVABLE. THE WHOLE VOCABULARY OF THE PAPACY IS ROOTED IN PATRIARCHY: POPE,
FATHER, PONTIFF. THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HAS NOT YET EVEN ACCEPTED THE ORDINATION OF
WOMEN FOR ORDINARY PRIESTLY ROLES. THE ANGLICAN CHURCH HAS MADE MORE PROGRESS ON
THE ISSUE OF ORDAINING WOMEN. THE ANGLICAN CHURCH, BETTER KNOWN AS EPISCOPALIAN
IN THE UNITED STATES, BUT WE ARE STILL WAITING FOR THE FIRST FEMALE BISHOP OF
CANTERBURY IN THE PALACE IN LONDON. IN ALL ABRAHAMIC RELIGIONS, THERE IS A
CRISIS OF GENDER. IS IT A SIN TO THINK OF GOD AS A QUEEN INSTEAD OF A KING? WHY
DOES THE TRINITY CONSIST OF TWO MALES-- THE FATHER AND THE SON-- AND ONE NEUTER,
THE HOLY GHOST? WHY ARE JEWISH PROPHETS OVERWHELMINGLY MALE? PERHAPS AMINA WADUD
IS INITIATING IN ALL THREE MAJOR RELIGIONS. AFTER ALL, ABRAHAM HIMSELF WAS A
PATRIARCH. IT MAY BE TIME TO DIS-ABRAHAMALIZE THE ABRAHAMIC LEGACY. CERTAINLY
FOR MUSLIMS, IT'S THE FOURTH DIMENSION OF THIS ERA. WE STARTED WHEN VALUES WERE
CLOSE TO WESTERN VALUES BUT RELATIONS DIVERGED. WE ENTERED LATER ON WHEN VALUES
DIVERGED BUT RELATIONS CONVERGED. WE ENTERED THE THIRD PHASE WHEN VALUES
CONTINUE TO DIVERGE, BUT SEPTEMBER 11th WAS PUSHING US APART, AND NOW WE ARE
SEEKING CHANGES FROM THE MENTAL IN THE DEMOCRATIZATION OF AMERICA AND FROM THE
MENTAL IN THE MODERNIZATION OF ISLAM. PERHAPS TRUE CONVERGENCE LIES IN THAT
LONG-TERM SCENARIO. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. (Applause) >> GOOD EVENING. I HAD SOME
PREPARED REMARKS, BUT I THINK THAT THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE AT THIS PARTICULAR
CULTURAL MOMENT OF A SO-CALLED CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS IS SUCH AN OVERWHELMING
AND COMPLEX TOPIC THAT I'D LIKE TO SPEAK PERHAPS A BIT MORE, ODDLY ENOUGH AND
PARADOXICALLY ENOUGH, MORE CASUALLY ABOUT IT AND HOPEFULLY THIS WILL FACILITATE
SOME KIND OF DISCUSSION. PROFESSOR MAZRUI POINTS OUT THAT CLASH OF CIVILIZATION
IS NOTHING NEW AND IF WE LOOK AT HISTORICAL CLASHES, WE'LL FIND THAT NOT 50
YEARS BACK, NOT 100 YEARS BACK, BUT 500 YEARS BACK. I WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST IN
LIGHT OF SOME OF THE REVISIONIST WORK BEING DONE, HISTORIOGRAPHICAL WORK BEING
DONE THAT LOOKS AT THE KIND OF INTERPOLLINATION, SO TO SPEAK, OF CULTURES THAT
WE KEEP IN MIND THAT CLASHES HAVE ALWAYS BEEN AROUND, THAT CIVILIZATIONS IN FACT
HAVE MORPHED AND CHANGED AND INDEED WHAT WE THOUGHT MIGHT HAVE BEEN A
CIVILIZATION AT ONE TIME IS NO LONGER THE KIND OF ENTITY, DISCREET, COMPACTED
ENTITY THAT IT ONCE WAS AND INDEED SUCH A CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS IS IN A LARGE
WAY MISLEADING. IF WE WERE TO GO BACK TO CLASHES INDEED AMONGST THE THREE
RELIGIONS OF THE BOOK, SO TO SPEAK, WE CAN CONSIDER PERHAPS CORDOBA, SPAIN, IN
THE TWELFTH CENTURY WHERE, WITHIN A DECADE OF ONE ANOTHER, MAIMONIDES, THE GREAT
JEWISH PHILOSOPHER, AND AVERROES, THE GREAT ARAB PHILOSOPHER, ARE WORKING AND
RESPONDING TO ONE ANOTHER'S WORK IN A REMARKABLE KIND OF ERA OF HYBRIDITY THAT
IS PART AND PARCEL OF THE ARAB CIVILIZATION OF THE TIME. BUT CAN YOU STILL SPEAK
OF CIVILIZATIONS IN THE 20th CENTURY? CAN WE SPEAK OF CIVILIZATIONS AFTER
EMPIRE? AND I MEAN THIS TO BE A KIND OF-- A RAY OF-- PERHAPS APPROACHING THIS
PROBLEM FROM A DIFFERENT WAY, TO INTERROGATE IT IN LIGHT OF NOT JUST THE KIND OF
POST-MODERN CULTURAL CONDITION OF THE HYPER-INDUSTRIALIZED WORLD, OF OUR
CONSUMER-DRIVEN SOCIETY WHERE MEDIA IS PART OF THE SPECTACLE OF EVERY DAY LIFE
BUT INDEED WHERE ECONOMIES, POLITICS, PEOPLES HAVE TANGIBLY STARTED TO MOVE
ACROSS BASES OF BOTH PLACES AND OF TIME. IN LIGHT OF THAT, CAN WE TALK ABOUT THE
UNITED STATES AS A DISCREET ENTITY OR ISLAM INDEED AS A DISCREET ENTITY, OR ARE
THESE CATEGORIES THAT THROUGH THEORIES SUCH AS CLASH OF CIVILIZATION, PUT OUT IN
A VERY TACTICAL WAY BY SOMEONE VERY MUCH INVOLVED IN THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE
COLD WAR AT PRECISELY THE MOMENT THE COLD WAR IS ENDING, IS THAT KIND OF AN
EFFORT TO CONSTRUCT A NEW CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS? DO CATEGORIES OF CLASH OF
CIVILIZATIONS TAKE SHAPE IN THIS NEW ERA AS A RESULT OF PRECISELY THESE SORTS OF
MOVES? I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THE LONG, EXTENSIVE AND HYBRID HISTORY OF THE UNITED
STATES, VIS-A-VIS THE MIDDLE EAST, IS ONE THAT MUST BE CONSISTENTLY FLESHED OUT
THROUGH A HISTORY OF POLICY, THROUGH A HISTORY OF INTERACTIONS THAT IS
POLITICAL, THAT IS SOCIAL, THAT IS ECONOMIC AND THAT IS CULTURAL BUT ALWAYS
CONTINGENT UPON PROBABLY THE TWO MAJOR FACTORS THAT MOST STRUCTURE THE POSTWORLD WAR II HISTORY OF THE MIDDLE EAST: OIL AND ISRAEL, AND I'M HOPING THAT
PROFESSOR MAZRUI WILL DIRECT SOME OF HIS DISCUSSION ALONG THESE LINES. ON A
FINAL NOTE-- TWO FINAL NOTES-- I'LL KEEP IT KIND OF SIMPLE. WHEN SAMUEL
HUNTINGTON PICKS OUT THIS PHRASE, "CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS," HE DOES SO USING THE
TERM THAT BERNARD LEWIS HAS FIRST POPULARIZED A FEW YEARS EARLIER IN AN ESSAY
CALLED "THE ROOTS OF MUSLIM RAGE," AND THAT ESSAY BY LEWIS, A SCHOLAR OF ISLAM
BUT A SCHOLAR OF A PARTICULAR SORT, A SCHOLAR SCHOOLED IN THE TEXTURAL
TRADITIONS THAT CAME TO BE CALLED ORIENTALISM IN THE UNIVERSITIES OF EUROPE AND
NORTH AMERICA, OF A PARTICULAR BRAND OF TEXTURAL HUMANIST CULTURAL STUDY THAT IN
THE POST-WAR ERA HAD BECOME DISPLACED WHICH MORE INSTRUMENTAL POLICY-ORIENTED
DECISIONS ALIGNED WITH THE STATE. A CULTURAL EXPLANATION HAD KIND OF FOUND A
MOMENT IN THE LATE-'80s AND THE CULTURAL EXPLANATION WAS PULLED INTO A KIND OF
THEORY BY HUNTINGTON. BUT TO GO BACK TO ORIENTALISM AND EDWARD SAID'S FAMOUS
CRITIQUE, HE POINTS THIS OUT: IT'S ABOUT A FUNDAMENTAL KIND OF DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN EAST AND WEST AND OF THE SYSTEMIC NECESSITY FOR MAINTAINING THOSE SORTS
OF SEPARATIONS THAT BEGIN, AS I POINT OUT TO YOU, TO BEGIN TO KIND OF COME APART
IN THE MIDDLE OF THE 20th CENTURY AS EMPIRE COMES TO AN END. SO WE'RE FINDING IN
A CERTAIN WAY THESE CATEGORIES BECOMING REGROUPED... AND TO ARGUE WHETHER THE
U.S. IS AN EMPIRE, I WOULD ARGUE WE ARE NOT. EMPIRES PAID MUCH MORE ATTENTION TO
THEIR PERIPHERY, AND IN NOW IN-FAMOUS "SATANIC VERSES" BY SALMAN RUSHDIE, ONE OF
THE CHARACTERS IS GOING THROUGH A LITANY OF THINGS HE DISLIKES ABOUT THE
BRITISH. HE'S A SOUTH-ASIAN AND HAS SPENT MUCH OF HIS LIFE UNDER THE BRITISH
RAJ, BEING A COLONIAL SUBJECT. "ONE OF THE THINGS I HATE ABOUT THE BRITISH IS
THAT THEY DON'T KNOW THEIR OWN HISTORY BECAUSE IT HAPPENED ELSEWHERE." NOW, IF
WE WERE AN EMPIRE, WE MIGHT HAVE THAT BUREAUCRACY, THAT THIN COLONIAL
ADMINISTRATION LAYER THAT WENT ELSEWHERE. WE DON'T REALLY HAVE THAT. WHAT WE DO
HAVE IS A POST-MODERN CONTINUITY, A BRIEF CONNECTION THAT MAINLY REMAINS UNUSED.
IF THOSE CONNECTIONS WERE TO BE CULTIVATED, PERHAPS A DIFFERENT PICTURE OF
AMERICAN CULTURE IN SOCIETY WOULD EMERGE. THANK YOU. (Applause) >> OKAY. ANOTHER
REASON I PUT MYSELF IN THE LAST SLOT AS DISCUSSANT SO THAT I COULD NOT DISCUSS
IF IN FACT IT LOOKS LIKE WE ARE RUNNING TOO LONG, AND I THINK IT'S REALLY MORE
IMPORTANT TO GO TO QUESTIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE AT THIS POINT THAN TO HEAR ME SAY
MORE. YOU DON'T MIND, I'M SURE. NO PROBLEM, PROFESSOR GREBINGER, YES. SO WHAT
WE'RE GOING TO DO THEN IS ASK Dr. MAZRUI AND Dr. RAY TO COME TO THE TABLE SO
THAT THEY'LL BE THERE FOR YOU TO SEE. I AM GOING TO TAKE THIS MICROPHONE AROUND
AND I WANT TO MENTION THAT OUR INTERPRETERS ALSO HAVE A MIC, SO THEY CAN VOICE
FOR DEAF STUDENTS WHO MAY HAVE QUESTIONS. WE'RE LOOKING THEN FOR QUESTIONS.
WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO ACCOMPANY YOU? WE'RE LOOKING FOR QUESTION FROM THE
AUDIENCE-- (Mic feedback) WE'RE LOOKING FOR QUESTIONS, AND I DON'T MIND RUNNING
TO THE TOP AND RUNNING TO THE BOTTOM AND SO ON AND SO FORTH. WHO WOULD LIKE TO-BEGIN? OH, THIS IS A MERCY. (Chuckling) >> THANK YOU. I JUST WONDER WHY IS IT
IMPORTANT THAT THE VALUES CONVERGED IN ORDER FOR THE PEOPLE TO GET TOGETHER AND
TO LIVE PEACEFULLY TOGETHER? IN OTHER WORDS, I'M SAYING THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO-THE VALUES DON'T NEED TO CONVERGE IN ORDER FOR THE WEST AND THE EAST OR THE
MUSLIMS AND THE WEST TO LIVE HAPPILY TOGETHER. >> YOU WANT US TO ANSWER ONE AT A
TIME? OKAY. I AGREE WITH YOU THAT THEY DON'T HAVE TO CONVERGE. THE HISTORY OF
THE CENTURY WHICH I ENUMERATED FOR YOU BEARS YOU OUT BECAUSE WHEN THE VALUES
WERE SIMILAR, IN THE FIRST HALF OF THE 20th CENTURY, AMERICANS HATED MUSLIMS AND
PROBABLY VICE VERSA. SO MANY OF THEIR MORES WERE SIMILARLY ORIENTED TOWARD
FAMILY, PATRIARCHY, NOTIONS OF HOW TO TREAT WOMEN, ET CETERA, AND BRIEFLY TOWARD
OUTLAWS. SO THE VALUES WERE SIMILAR; THEY HATED EACH OTHER. SO THAT BEARS YOUR
POINT THEN. BUT THE OTHER FACT, IN MY FOURTH SCENARIO, IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE
REFERRING TO? IN MY FOURTH SCENARIO, IT REQUIRES THE DEEPER DEMOCRATIZATION OF
THE UNITED STATES AND THE MODERNIZATION AND LIBERALIZATION OF ISLAM. THE OUTCOME
OF THAT NEED NOT BE ACROSS-THE-BOARD VALUE CONVERGENCE. IT MAY JUST MEAN CERTAIN
VALUES HAVE TO BE COMPATIBLE RATHER THAN CONVERGE; THEY DON'T HAVE TO BE THE
SAME; THEY JUST HAVE TO BE COMPATIBLE TO FORM THE BASIS OF PEACE BETWEEN THOSE
TWO CIVILIZATIONS. >> I HAVE A BIT OF A RESPONSE. INDIA IS A COMMON EXAMPLE
REGARDING CULTURAL PLURALISM, AND POLITICAL THEORISTS HAVE BEEN WORKING RATHER
HARD AT KEEPING CULTURES FROM BECOMING EXTREMIST REALLY IN AN EFFORT TO PRODUCE
A KIND OF IDENTITY, YOU KNOW, NEEDED TO PARTICIPATE IN A DEMOCRACY, AND RECENTLY
THE ARGUMENT HAS BEEN MADE AGAINST NORMATIVE CRITERIA, SO THAT LITERALLY PEOPLE
DON'T HAVE TO EVEN EXPLAIN THEMSELVES TO OTHERS, THAT WITHIN THE GROUP ITSELF,
THE RATIONALE THAT MAY EMERGE, THE MOMENT THAT IT ENTERS INTO A KIND OF
NORMATIVE DISCOURSE, IT TRANSFORMS THE GROUP ITSELF. SO ASKING FOR A RADICAL
TOLERANCE, REALLY, WHICH I DON'T SEE AS BEING PART OF THE ARGUMENT THE POLITICAL
PHILOSOPHERS PUT OUT, I DON'T SEE IT HAPPENS BUT IT'S A WAY OF A DIFFERENT
DIRECTION THAT MIGHT BE WORTHWHILE. >> I'M JUST WONDERING IF YOU BELIEVE THAT AL
QAEDA HAD JUSTIFICATION FOR 9/11, BASED ON THE FORMER ATROCITIES FROM THE WEST.
BASED ON WHAT THE WEST HAS DONE-- YOU SAID MULTIPLE TIMES THE WEST HAS KILLED
THE ISLAMIC WORLD, SO ARE THEY JUSTIFIED AT LEAST IN PART IN WHAT THEY DID TO US
BACK? >> THERE'S NO DOUBT ABOUT THE RAGE THAT LEWIS WAS REFERRING TO, THE MUSLIM
RAGE IN THE WORLD; IT'S USUALLY WORSE THAN EVER SINCE THE RESPONSE TO SEPTEMBER
11th. WHAT IS HAPPENING IS THE WAR ON TERROR IS KILLING MANY MORE PEOPLE THAN
THE TERROR AND IS PRODUCING MORE TERRORISTS IN THE PROCESS. AND THEN FOR MANY
MUSLIMS, HOW DO YOU CONTROL-- I DISAGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUE HERE THIS IS NOT AN
EMPIRE, BUT IT IS AN EMPIRE OF A DIFFERENT KIND. IT'S AN EMPIRE OF CONTROL; IT'S
NOT AN EMPIRE OF OCCUPATION. SO IF YOU ARE IN IRAQ, QUICKLY MAKE IT APPEAR AS IF
YOU ARE NO LONGER OCCUPYING. CREATE THE GOVERNMENT AND PRETEND YOUR 150,000
TROOPS THERE ARE NOT PART OF THE POLITICAL SCENE. IT'S A DIFFERENT KIND OF
EMPIRE THAT IS UNICENTRIC, CONTROLLING, SOVEREIGN IMPUNITY RATHER THAN SOVEREIGN
ACCOUNTABILITY AND WITH NO SPECIAL SENSE OF REMORSE FOR WHAT IT DOES. HOW DO WE
CONTROL IT? I ONLY MENTIONED ONE FORM IN MY LECTURE, BUT THIS QUESTION ENABLES
ME TO MENTION THE OTHER. HOW DO YOU TAME THE UNITED STATES? I FOCUS ON RELYING
ON THE DEMOCRATIC FORCES WITHIN THE UNITED STATES, BUT ELSEWHERE, I HAVE SAID
THERE ARE THREE OTHER WAYS OF TAMING THE UNITED STATES. ONE IS MAKING AMERICANS
PAY WITH THEIR-- PAY WHEN THEY ABUSE POWER. SOMETIMES YOU MAKE AMERICANS PAY BY
JUST ECONOMIC MOVES LIKE THE OIL BOYCOTT OF THE 1970s, BY THE OIL POWERS.
SOMETIMES YOU MAKE AMERICANS PAY BY INSURGENCY, LIKE IN IRAQ WHICH IS HAPPENING
RIGHT NOW. THE AMERICANS ARE PAYING FOR THEIR DECISION TO INVADE. THEY THOUGHT
IT WOULD BE A WALKOVER. IT WAS A WALKOVER IN CONVENTIONAL WARFARE. IT ISN'T A
WALKOVER IN TERMS OF CONTINUING CONFLICT. AND THEN THE THIRD IS THE UGLY PART OF
TERRORISM: MAKE AMERICANS PAY. WE CAN'T FIGHT THEM WITH PLANES; THEY HAVE MORE
OF THEM. WE CAN'T FIGHT THEM WITH ROCKETS; THEY HAVE MORE OF THEM. WE CAN'T
FIGHT THEM WITH TANKS; WE DON'T HAVE ANY. WE CAN FIGHT THEM WITH OUR BODIES AND
WITH WEAPONS TIED TO OUR BODIES. THERE'S NOTHING IN SUICIDE BOMBING THAT MAKES
IT MORE IMMORAL THAN HOMICIDE BOMBING. BELIEVE YOU ME, THE FACT THAT YOU KILL
PEOPLE WITHOUT KILLING YOURSELF, AS AMERICANS AND ISRAELIS ARE DOING ALL THE
TIME, IS NOT MORALLY SUPERIOR TO KILLING PEOPLE WHILE YOU KILL YOURSELF. BOTH
ARE FORMS OF VIOLENCE. >> OKAY. >> A QUESTION OVER HERE. >> I HAVE SEVERAL
QUESTIONS. THE FIRST QUESTION IS WHEN YOU REFER TO OCCUPATION, IT ASTONISHES ME
YOU REFER TO PALESTINE WHEN PALESTINE HAS NEVER EXISTED AS AN INDEPENDENT STATE.
OTHER THAN THAT, IT ALSO SURPRISES ME THAT YOU BLAME ONLY THE WEST FOR
OCCUPATION AND YOU DON'T BLAME THE MUSLIM WORLD WHEN YOU CAN EQUATE THE
OCCUPATION OF WHAT YOU CALL PALESTINE AND THE OCCUPATION OF KURDISTAN. MY SECOND
PART OF THE QUESTION IS YOU BLAME THE WEST FOR KILLING MANY, MANY, MANY MUSLIMS
AND YOU FORGET TO MENTION THE INSURGENCY IN IRAQ IS NOT ONLY AGAINST THE UNITED
STATES; IT'S ALSO AMONGST THEMSELVES. FORGET TO MENTION THE MURDER OF KURDISH
PEOPLE AND THE POLITICAL MOVEMENT AGAINST THEIR INDEPENDENCE, AND FINALLY I WAS
SURPRISED THAT YOU WERE FROM MOMBASA. ACTUALLY, I DIDN'T DO MY RESEARCH BEFORE I
CAME HERE, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO MENTION THAT IN MOMBASA, ISRAELIS WERE KILLED
JUST BECAUSE THEY HAD A BLUE PASSPORT, WHERE THEY WERE NOT CONQUERING MOMBASA,
JUST WENT THERE FOR A NICE SUMMER TRIP, AND THAT MURDER IS A SHOW OF CLASHING OF
CIVILIZATION. >> OKAY. ON THE FIRST ONE, VIOLENCE WITHIN THE MUSLIM WORLD, THIS
IS A SITUATION OF INTRACIVILIZATIONAL VIOLENCE. IT IS TRUE CASES OF MUSLIMS
FIGHTING EACH OTHER, MUSLIMS AT WAR WITH EACH OTHER. DO YOU KNOW WHICH
CIVILIZATION HAD THE MOST MASSIVE INTRACIVILIZATIONAL WAR? THE WEST. WE CALL
THEM WORLD WARS. WORLD WAR I AND WORLD WAR II STARTED AS EUROPEAN CIVIL WARS,
EUROPEAN CIVIL WARS THAT DRAGGED THE REST OF US INTO THEM AND KILLED MILLIONS
UPON MILLIONS OF PEOPLE. SO TALK OF INTRACIVILIZATIONAL WAR, THERE'S NOTHING TO
MATCH WHAT WHITE PEOPLE HAVE DONE TO EACH OTHER WITHIN MY LIFETIME. I WAS
POLITICALLY CONSCIOUS DURING WORLD WAR II IN MOMBASA WHEN THIS KINDS OF INTEREST
OF CIVILIZATION WAS HAPPENING. SECOND, I THINK THE EUROPEAN POWERS MADE A
MISTAKE; THEY SHOULD HAVE CREATED A SEPARATE KURDISTAN AT THE COLLAPSE OF THE
OTTOMAN EMPIRE. I'M ON THE SIDE OF THE KURDS, OF THE PEOPLE SINNED AGAINST, NOT
JUST BY THEIR PRESENT RULERS BUT BECAUSE THE WORLD SYSTEM AT THE END OF WORLD
WAR I AND THE COLLAPSE OF THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE, WHEN THERE WAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO
CREATE A SEPARATE KURDISTAN, THEY DID NOT. AT THE END OF WORLD WAR II, WHEN
THERE WAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO CREATE A JEWISH STATE, THEY DID. WHEN JEWISH FRIENDS
AND ZIONISTS TELL ME, "LOOK, WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO WITH THE JEWS WHO DIDN'T
HAVE A STATE OF THEIR OWN?" YOU KNOW, THE EXAMPLE I VERY OFTEN GIVE IS THE
KURDS. WHO TOLD YOU JEWS ARE THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO DIDN'T HAVE A STATE OF THEIR
OWN BEFORE 1948? THE KURDS DIDN'T HAVE A STATE. THEY ARE SCATTERED IN FOUR
DIFFERENT COUNTRIES. THERE ARE LARGE GROUPS OF AFRICANS... THERE WAS NOTHING
UNIQUE ABOUT JEWS NOT HAVING A STATE OF THEIR OWN. BUT MY FAVORITE EXAMPLE IS
KURDISTAN, WHICH COULD EASILY HAVE BEEN GIVEN A STATE OF THEIR OWN. BUT IT'S A
SIN OF HISTORY RATHER THAN A SIN OF THE PRESENT SITUATION. I HOPE AN OPPORTUNITY
OCCURS WHICH CAN RECTIFY THAT SITUATION. SO I REGRET MUSLIMS KILL EACH OTHER.
I'M AFRAID THE SHORT PERIOD OF AMERICAN KILLING OF MUSLIMS KILLED MANY MORE
MUSLIMS THAN THEY DO OVER TEN YEARS, JUST SHOWS AMERICAN POWER BUTCHERY IS
ENOUGH TO OUTPACE MUSLIM INTERNAL MASOCHISM. >> IS THERE A QUESTION UP THERE? >>
YEP. >> I WAS HOPING I WOULD GET A WORKOUT. CAN WE GET YOU TO COME OVER HERE? >>
YOU SAID YOU DON'T HAVE ANY-- THE WESTERN WORLD HAS KILLED MORE MUSLIMS OVER THE
PAST TEN YEARS THAN MUSLIMS HAVE KILLED THEMSELVES, BUT HOW WOULD YOU EXPLAIN
THE MASS GENOCIDE IN THE SUDAN, WHICH IS ESTIMATED NOW TO BE 350,000 PEOPLE? >>
THE SECOND PART, CAN YOU REPEAT? >> THEY'RE ESTIMATING-- THE U.N. HAS ESTIMATES
THAT IN THE SUDAN, 350,000 PEOPLE HAVE BEEN KILLED BASICALLY BY A MUSLIM
FACTION, I GUESS YOU'D CALL IT? I GUESS MY QUESTION IS HOW DO YOU JUSTIFY-- HOW
ARE YOU-- YOU'RE COMING UPON YOUR IDEAS SAYING IT'S BETTER THAT THE MUSLIMS KILL
THEMSELVES OR IT'S BETTER THAN THE WESTERN WORLD HAS KILLED A BUNCH OF MUSLIMS
BUT IT'S NOT REALLY A MUSLIM PROBLEM? >> NO, I'M SORRY IF I CAME ACROSS AS
SAYING IT'S OKAY FOR MUSLIMS TO KILL EACH OTHER. IT'S NOT OKAY FOR MUSLIMS TO
KILL EACH OTHER. AND IT'S NOT OKAY FOR MUSLIMS IN SUDAN OR ONE PART OF SUDAN
KILLING MUSLIMS IN ANOTHER PART OF THE SUDAN OR IN THE CASE OF MUSLIMS IN POWER
IN SUDAN KILLING MUSLIMS IN THE SOUTH. ALL I'M SAYING IS THAT THE SCALE OF
KILLING BY THE WEST IN THE LAST TEN YEARS IS MUCH GREATER, EVEN WHEN IRAQ WAS
NOT UNDER DIRECT OCCUPATION. THE SANCTIONS THAT THE UNITED STATES AND UNITED
KINGDOM IMPOSED UPON IRAQ BY MOST ESTIMATED RESULTED IN THE DEATH OF AN
ADDITIONAL 300,000 IF NOT HALF A MILLION ADDITIONAL IRAQIS. WHEN THE COUNTRY WAS
NOT EVEN AT WAR BECAUSE THE UNITED STATES AND GREAT BRITAIN FORCED THE UNITED
NATIONS TO ENFORCE A REGIME OF SANCTIONS WHICH WAS DEVASTATING FOR THE CHILDREN
AND LEFT SADDAM STILL IN POWER. WHEN COMPARING SCALES OF KILLING, NOTHING THAT
HAPPENS BETWEEN TRIBES IN AFRICA COMPARES WITH THE SCALE THAT IS DONE BY
AMERICAN MIGHT WHEN IT IS LET LOOSE. >> HOW CAN YOU ARGUE THAT IT IS JUST THE
UNITED STATES WHO IMPOSED ALL THESE SANCTIONS? IT WAS A WORLD BODY, THE U.N.-(Inaudible) -- SECONDLY-- (Inaudible) >> THE SECOND POSITION IS NOT TRUE. STUDY
AFTER STUDY OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF SANCTIONS WITH REGARD TO INFANT MORTALITY,
DEATH OF MOTHERS, INADEQUATE MEDICATIONS, THOSE HAVE BEEN REPEATED. IF YOU JUST
SAY THERE WERE VIOLATIONS WITH REGARD TO WHO SELLS OIL, THAT'S PROBABLY TRUE.
BUT WITH REGARD TO WHETHER THE SANCTIONS RESULTED IN THE DEPRIVATION OF MAJOR
COMMODITIES VITAL TO THE SURVIVAL OF THE IRAQI PEOPLE, THAT HAS BEEN
DEMONSTRATED BY STUDY AFTER STUDY. THE FACT THAT THE UNITED STATES USED THE
UNITED NATIONS FROM TIME TO TIME DOESN'T MAKE IT LESS OF AN AMERICAN INITIATIVE.
MOST STUDIES OF THE U.N. WITH REGARDS TO THE SANCTIONS SAID EVERYBODY ELSE WAS
READY TO CEASE THE SANCTION BUT FOR THOSE TWO ANGLO-SAXON POWERS-- THE UNITED
STATES AND GREAT BRITAIN-- AND EITHER OF THEM COULD STOP LIFTING THE SANCTIONS
BECAUSE IT NEEDED ONE VETO TO STOP A CHANGE, AND THE DECISION TO MAINTAIN THE
SANCTION WAS EXCLUSIVELY BRITAIN AND THE UNITED STATES. IN REALITY, THE UNITED
STATES. BRITAIN VERY OFTEN IS JUST A POODLE TO THE UNITED STATES. >> OKAY. WE
HAVE A QUESTION HERE. >> I WOULD JUST LIKE TO COMMENT ON THE ROLE OF THE
FINANCIAL OLIGARCHY, THE INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND AND WORLD BANK-- >> WHERE
ARE YOU-- >> UP HERE, SIR. --OLIGARCHY, THE INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND AND THE
WORLD BANK IN THE REAL CAUSES OF DEVASTATION AND THE REAL CLASH OF
CIVILIZATIONS? >> WELL, AS YOU KNOW, THERE ARE REALLY THE BANKERS, REALLY
SUPPOSED TO DEAL WITH DEVASTATED EUROPE WHEN THEY WERE CREATED AND LATER ON
BECAME AN INSTRUMENT FOR DEALING WITH A DEVASTATED SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE. THERE
HAVE BEEN CHANGES IN POLICIES, ESPECIALLY WITHIN THE LAST SIX YEARS OR SO, WHICH
GIVES US HOPE AFTER THE WORLD BANK, ESPECIALLY, AND MAJOR COMMITMENTS RIGHT NOW
TOWARD AFRICA THAT ARE FAR GREATER THAN THEY WERE PREPARED TO DO BEFORE, AND THE
WORLD BANK PRESIDENT WHO IS STEPPING DOWN SHORTLY HAD MORE OF A DETERMINATION TO
DEAL WITH POVERTY REDUCTION THAN ALMOST ANY OF HIS PREDECESSORS. I SERVED ON
WHAT WAS CALLED THE WORLD BANK COUNCIL OF AFRICAN ADVISORS WHICH ADVISED THE
WORLD BANK FOR ABOUT A DECADE, HOW INFLUENCE ON THEIR DECISION WAS VERY SLOW BUT
IT DID EVENTUALLY LEAD TO THEIR TAKING ISSUES LIKE GOVERNANCE, CULTURAL
DIFFERENCES MORE SERIOUSLY THAN THEY DID BEFORE. UNFORTUNATELY, THE WORLD BANK
IS STILL A SYSTEM WHERE THE PRESIDENT HAS TO BE AN AMERICAN. IF YOU GET A GOOD
AMERICAN, THAT'S VERY GOOD. IF YOU GET A BAD ONE, GOD HELP THE REST OF THE
WORLD. PRESIDENT BUSH HAS JUST NOMINATED ONE OF THE HAWKS OF THE IRAQI WAR AND
THERE'S NO DOUBT WE'RE HEADING FOR TROUBLE UNDER HIS PRESIDENCY OF THE WORLD
BANK. IN GENERAL, THE WHOLE SYSTEM NEEDS TO BE DEMOCRATIZED. WHY SHOULD IT BE
THAT FOR THE LAST 50 YEARS ALL PRESIDENTS OF THE WORLD BANK HAVE BEEN AMERICANS?
IT'S TIME WE SHIFTED SO THAT OTHER PARTS OF THE WORLD CAN LEAD THE INTERNATIONAL
MONETARY FUND, APART FROM EUROPEANS-- THIS USED TO BE RESERVED FOR EUROPEANS-OR LEAD THE WORLD BANK APART FROM AMERICANS? THE TWO INSTITUTIONS ARE SYMBOLIC
OF A DISTORTED GLOBAL SYSTEM OF POWER. >> OKAY. WE HAVE ONE QUESTION HERE AND
THEN I'M GOING TO LOOK FOR ONE MORE. >> GOOD EVENING. I'M WONDERING, DOCTOR, DO
YOU SEE THAT THERE WILL BE A DIVERGENCE OF ATTITUDES TOWARD WOMEN IN EITHER THE
WESTERN CIVILIZATION OR MUSLIM CIVILIZATION SO THAT THERE WILL BE MORE
OPPORTUNITY AND EQUALITY? >> I'M FAIRLY OPTIMISTIC, BUT IT CAN'T HAPPEN UNLESS
WOMEN THEMSELVES ARE MORE AND MORE DETERMINED IN RECLAIMING THEIR RIGHTS. IN
GENERAL, THE WOMEN OF THE WESTERN WORLD HAVE BEEN MORE ACTIVE DURING MY LIFETIME
TO RECLAIM THEIR RIGHTS THAN THE WOMEN IN THE MUSLIM WORLD, SO WHEN A MUSLIM
WOMAN LIKE AMINA WADUD, ALTHOUGH SHE'S BORN A WESTERNER, IS MUSLIM, BRING MAJOR
CONVICTION, IS A WOMAN, OUT TO CREATE A MAJOR CHANGE, JUST WHO LEADS THE
PRAYERS, THE JUM'AH PRAYERS? IT'S AN ISSUE OF RELIGIOUS LEADERSHIP. CAN
RELIGIOUS LEADERSHIP BE IN THE HANDS OF A WOMAN? WELL, WE KNOW THAT AISHA, ONE
OF THE WIVES OF THE PROPHET, HAD A LEADERSHIP ROLE, INCLUDING ON A BATTLEFIELD.
WE KNOW THE CONSORT OF THE SECOND CALIPH WAS INFLUENTIAL ON THE CALIPH DURING
THAT DAY, BUT ISLAM WENT MUCH MORE SEXIST LATER ON, AND IT DOES NEED PEOPLE LIKE
AMINA WADUD TO ENFORCE THE PACE OF CHANGE. SO WHEN YOU ASK IF THERE WILL BE
IMPROVEMENT OF MUSLIM WOMEN OR WOMEN IN THE WESTERN WORLD, I SAY YES. ON THE
ISSUE OF WOMEN OBTAINING ULTIMATE POLITICAL POWER, I INDICATED THE MUSLIM WORLD
IS ALREADY AHEAD OF MAJOR WESTERN COUNTRIES BECAUSE WE HAVE HAD WOMEN
PRESIDENTS, WOMEN PRIME MINISTERS. BUT IN OTHER AREAS OF ENDEAVOR, THERE'S A LOT
OF WORK TO BE DONE, BOTH IN THE WEST AND THE MUSLIM WORLD. >> TO WHAT EXTENT
DOES THE MUSLIM WORLD VIEW THE OUTSIDE WORLD, THE WESTERN WORLD FROM A RACIAL
PERSPECTIVE, INCLUDING ISRAEL? DO THEY SOMEHOW ASSOCIATE AMERICAN VALUES OR THE
WESTERN VALUES IN A RACIAL TERM? AS LIKE A WHITE VALUE, AN IMPERIALISTIC VALUE?
>> IN RACIAL TERMS, DID YOU SAY? >> DO THEY VIEW THE VALUES OF THE WESTERN WORLD
IN A RACIAL WAY? LIKE DO THEY ASSOCIATE RACE AND VALUES TO AMERICA? >> AT THE
TIME WHEN THE VALUES OF THE MUSLIM WORLD AND THE AMERICAN WORLD CONVERGED, WERE
SIMILAR, ONE AREA WHERE THEY DID NOT CONVERGE WAS ON RACE RELATIONS BECAUSE THAT
WAS A PERIOD OF MAXIMUM AMERICAN RACISM IN MUCH OF THE FIRST HALF OF THE 20th
CENTURY, WHEREAS IN THE MUSLIM WORLD, RACES WERE INTERMINGLING, INTERMARRYING,
MOSQUES WERE INTERRACIAL, AND THE IDEA OF A HIGHLY SEGREGATED SOCIETY DIDN'T
EXIST. SO ON BALANCE, THE RECORD OF THE MUSLIM WORLD ON THE RACE ISSUE IS BY FAR
MUCH BETTER THAN THE RECORD OF THE WESTERN WORLD, PARTLY BECAUSE THE SYSTEM OF
RACE IS LESS RIGID. EGYPT HAS HAD FOUR PRESIDENTS SINCE 1952-- NAGUIB, NASSER,
ANWAR SADAT AND MUBARAK. TWO OF THEM HAD BLACK MOTHERS. THE PRIME MINISTER OF
KUWAIT CURRENTLY HAS A BLACK MOTHER. THE MUSLIM-- THE MOST INFLUENTIAL
AMBASSADOR IN THE UNITED STATES, A PRINCE FROM SAUDI ARABIA, HAS BEEN AMBASSADOR
TO THE UNITED STATES FOR TWO DECADES, HE HAS A BLACK MOTHER. THERE IS NO
EQUIVALENT INTERRACIAL ASCENT TO ULTIMATE POWER IN THE HISTORY OF RELATIONS
BETWEEN WHITE PEOPLE AND BLACK PEOPLE AS COMPARED BETWEEN AFRICAN PEOPLE AND
ARAB PEOPLE. SO THOSE ARE JUST OFF-HAND EXAMPLES RIGHT NOW OF TOP PEOPLE WHO
HAVE BLACK MOTHERS WHO IN THE UNITED STATES WOULD BE REGARDED AS JUST BLACK AND
FOR MUCH OF THE PERIOD I EXAMINED WOULD NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR ULTIMATE POWER. SO
SIMPLY ON THE ISSUE OF RACE RELATIONS, THERE'S NO DOUBT THE RECORD OF ISLAM IS
BETTER, BUT IT IS NOT PERFECT, AND IT NEEDS TO BE IMPROVED EVEN TODAY MUCH
BETTER. >> OKAY. I WANT TO THANK-- I KNOW WE HAVE RUN OVERTIME AND I WANT TO
THANK Dr. MAZRUI, Dr. RAY. I BELIEVE THERE'S SOME PEOPLE WHO WANT TO COME DOWN
AND SPEAK TO YOU DOWN HERE. YOU'RE WELCOME TO COME DOWN. (Applause)