Chapter 127
 
 
反思宗教的聖戰與信仰可怕之處


 

  台灣的八卦事件已經呈現一種沉淪的現象,在有關色情或是桃色事項上,一再被激發成情緒或非理性的餘性節目。由陳文茜到璩美鳳之風波,居然成為台灣新聞的頭條,而有如連續劇不斷的發展。但是大家亦不要忘了,在世界上的某些國家,極端侮辱女性,只是把女性物化為玩物或是生育工具而已,這時候是全民思量女權保護的關鍵時刻。

  且先不談國內是是非非,因為此類獨家報導已經餵飽台灣人民的味口,逐漸有消化不良的現象,就轉移目光到國外吧!由NEWSWEEK SPECIAL DAVOS EDITION 2001年12月的評述,值得大家來參讀,希望台灣不要再八卦了。關心國際事務吧!於THE AGE OF MUSLIM WARS有些觀察令人深思。

  以色列以其猶太教聖經建國,而巴勒斯坦人成為以色列建國的受害者,全世界西方與中東的對抗成為領地爭執的恐怖活動,故阿拉與基督的精神主旨蕩然無存。代言人先知的宗教領袖因運而生,更離譜的是不同通靈的先知,在信徒彼此相殘之後,皆宣稱信徒可以昇天,而得真主護祐。

  我們在這�堨眸歇`思,宗教的信仰,為何會變成人為運作的工具?而信徒之毫無判斷能力,勇於赴義的原因何在?在回教國的歷史記憶推波助瀾之下,不同宗教不能相容,東方西方信仰彼此猜忌,而回教派系的不同解讀亦成為內戰正當護身符,其目的乃為了自己的地盤,驅使信者赴湯蹈火。其失焦的結果竟然信者可以不惜一切犧牲,為升天而戰鬥,而背後勢力的消長,亦會運作此等宗教狂熱,添柴加火,成為被野心家利用的精神武器,同一宗教之各別解釋以及不同教派的各自排斥,兼諸派別各擁先知,或是各以為是的宗教領袖,把回教真理模糊化。

  中東產油成為資本家的必爭之地,其等國內亦各有所屬的大國與幫派依附,但是回教的同一信仰,並不能造成彼此的和諧,反而使中東地區成為世界最危險的火藥庫。事實上,其背後皆有有心人運用宗教作為工具,彼此之間為各自的宗派信仰,行聖戰之舉,會只是爭權奪利的表相。

  自1980年代,伊拉克入侵伊朗,有50多萬人死亡,有不計其數的百姓受害,同時蘇聯亦進軍阿富汗,1990 Saddam Hussein 攻打科威特,恐怖份子的發微與此等不公平不平衡戰爭中,自然成為氣候。全世界發生種種在西方國家與先進國的恐怖事件,亦源由於歷史的傷痕與宗教背景的畸變。

  事實告訴我們,要訓練勇於赴死的戰士並不困難,A.其首要在建立家族信仰的重心;B.以男性為主的信奉體素;C.再就是反抗一切外在的信息,與防患世界公民之人權思想的影響;D.所有的教育於封閉的宗教教化進行;E.另方面禁錮女性求知的教育機會,自然可以降低其母愛對子女的天性,而能甘心接子承父志的情操;此點對於聖戰的殉道,有絕大ㄅ的影響力。

  由於有許多信仰內涵,在各別宗教的教育中,對教義有不同的解讀,而封閉的唯讀經典,不但不能悟出博愛宏觀的世界村思想,反而在不斷的誦持背唸教化過程,訓練出一批又一批的反國際化、反人權、反異教、反異派的固執信念者,而母性的愛,在女權被壓制的教育中,得不到應有的尊重與揮灑空間。信者由幼至長,以宗派領袖為唯一最高指導者,稍一不慎,就成為被操控的棋子。

  回教人口的不斷增加,其等人口的壓力,亦造成宗派屬國的壓力,在階級分明的道長體系�堶情A無由抗衡,而長久以來的封建教條不容侵犯,信仰困死在此等無從與外界比較的象牙塔�堙C

  依歷史300年來的中東戰爭而言,中東各國累積東方對西方的積怨,果若如此,其子民會把深抑的不滿向外發洩,其結果就是一連串的戰鬥與反西潮恐怖行為,聖戰的觀念在此時此刻得到最好的出路,人口壓力形成的精神積壓,亦同時得以宣洩。

  西方國家亦要反省基督之國,於十字軍東征的正當性,而延留之因果效應,乃有今日之回教聖戰,而殖民控制的遺禍也在宗教互鬥與恐怖時代得到惡果,所以說,人為的操控成為世界禍源,宗教的大愛便成戰爭護身符,到底人類的信仰是什麼?

  參考NEWSWEEK 2001年12月的報導;

 

 


Pakistani Taliban supporters hold posters of Osama bin Laden at an anti-U.S. rally in Peshawar on Oct. 29



The Age Of Muslim Wars

Battlegrounds: An outburst of violence is sweeping across the world. What are its root causes—and will they erupt into a full-scale global conflict? The makings of a possible ‘clash of civilizations’ are present

By Samuel P. Huntington
NEWSWEEK


Jan. 2002 — Contemporary global politics is the age of Muslim wars. Muslims fight each other and fight non-Muslims far more often than do peoples of other civilizations. Muslim wars have replaced the cold war as the principal form of international conflict. These wars include wars of terrorism, guerrilla wars, civil wars and interstate conflicts. These instances of Muslim violence could congeal into one major clash of civilizations between Islam and the West or between Islam and the Rest. That, however, is not inevitable, and it is more likely that violence involving Muslims will remain dispersed, varied and frequent.

 THE AGE OF Muslim wars began as the cold war was winding down in the 1980s. In 1980 Iraq invaded Iran, and the ensuing war produced at least 500,000 deaths and hundreds of thousands of wounded. At the same time, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan generated vigorous Afghan resistance, which by 1989 compelled the Soviets to withdraw. This victory was made possible by American technology, Saudi and American money, Pakistani support and training, and the participation of thousands of fighters from other, mostly Arab, Muslim countries. Then in 1990 Saddam Hussein invaded and attempted to annex Kuwait, and the United States organized an international coalition, including several Muslim countries, to defeat him.
Muslims fight each other and fight non-Muslims far more often than do peoples of other civilizations.

In the 1990s violence occurred between Muslims and non-Muslims in Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Chechnya, Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, Kashmir, India, the Phil-ippines, Indonesia, the Middle East, Sudan and Nigeria. Mujahedin fighters from the Afghanistan war were central participants in many of these conflicts as well as in Muslim terrorist organizations in countries throughout the world. In the mid-1990s, roughly half the ethnic conflicts in the world involved Muslims fighting each other or non-Muslims. In one inventory by The Economist, Muslims were responsible for 11 and possibly 12 of 16 major acts of international terrorism between 1983 and 2000. Five of the seven states listed by the U.S. State Department as supporting terrorism are Muslim, as are a majority of foreign organizations listed as engaged in terrorism. In counteractions between 1980 and 1995, the U.S. armed forces engaged in 17 military operations against Muslims. According to the International Institute of Strategic Studies, 32 armed conflicts were underway in 2000; more than two thirds involved Muslims. Yet Muslims are only about one fifth of the world’s population.

MUSLIMS AGINST THE U.S.
The “new war,” as administration officials termed the violence that began September 11, is thus not so new. It is a continuation and escalation of previous patterns of violence involving Muslims. Earlier Muslim terrorism had, however, been sporadic and in comparison relatively limited: 299 people killed in the 1983 attack on the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, 270 on Pan Am Flight 103 in 1988, 224 in the 1998 attacks on U.S. African embassies. Different Muslim groups and states were involved in these incidents. Beginning in 1993, however, the principal attacks on Americans and American facilities all appear to have originated with Osama bin Laden. September 11 revealed the existence of his sizable global terrorist network with cells in perhaps 40 countries and with the expertise and resources to attempt well-planned simultaneous attacks. Also for the first time, the network struck with devastating effect within the United States, its actions highlighting the likelihood of chemical and biological attacks, with the more distant possibility of nuclear weapons. The age of Muslim wars had come home to America.
Responsibility for particular wars undoubtedly varies, with the Sudanese government responsible for its ongoing war against Christians and the Israeli government provoking the second intifada with its settlements and ongoing military presence in the West Bank and Gaza. Overall, however, the age of Muslim wars has its roots in more general causes. These do not include the inherent nature of Islamic doctrine and beliefs, which, like those of Christianity, adherents can use to justify peace or war as they wish. The causes of contemporary Muslim wars lie in politics, not seventh-century religious doctrines.

THE RISE OF ISLAMIC CONSCIOUSNESS
First, one of the most significant social, cultural and political developments in the past several decades has been the resurgence of Islamic consciousness, movements and identity among Muslim peoples almost everywhere. This Islamic resurgence is in large part a response to modernization and globalization and is highly constructive in many ways. Islamist organizations have moved in to meet the needs of the growing numbers of urban Muslims by providing social support, moral guidance, welfare, health services, education, unemployment relief—all services that Muslim governments often do not provide. In addition, in many Muslim societies, Islamists are the principal op-position to highly repressive governments. The Islamic resurgence has also spawned a small number of extremists who supply the recruits for terrorism and guerrilla wars against non-Muslims.
Second, throughout the Muslim world, and particularly among Arabs, there exists a great sense of grievance, resentment, envy and hostility toward the West and its wealth, power and culture. This is in part a result of Western imperialism and domination of the Muslim world for much of the 20th century. It is also in part the result of particular Western policies, including American action against Iraq since 1991 and the continuing close relationship between the United States and Israel. It is, more broadly, a reaction of Muslim peoples to their own corrupt, ineffective and repressive governments and the Western governments they see supporting those regimes.
Third, tribal, religious, ethnic, political and cultural divisions within the Muslim world stimulate violence between Muslims. They also promote violence between Muslims and non-Muslims because different Muslim groups and governments, such as those of Saudi Arabia and Iran, compete with each other in promoting their own brand of Islam and have supported Muslim groups fighting non-Muslims from Bosnia to the Philippines. If one or two states dominated the Muslim world, which has not been the case since the end of the Ottoman Empire, less violence would occur among Muslims and, probably, between Muslims and non-Muslims.
Fourth, the Islamic resurgence has coincided with and been invigorated by high birthrates in most Muslim societies, which have produced a “youth bulge” with large numbers of people between the ages of 16 and 30. Males in this age cohort often have secondary, technical or higher education, are in large part unemployed and hence migrate to the West, join fundamentalist organizations and political parties, and in small numbers enlist in Muslim guerrilla groups and terrorist networks. Young males are the principal perpetrators of violence in all societies; they exist in overabundant numbers in Muslim societies.

CIVILIZATIONAL WAR?
These factors are among the sources of the widespread violence involving Muslims. To date, that violence has been largely localized, limited and dispersed. Could it evolve into a major violent civilizational war between Islam and the West and possibly other civilizations? This is clearly the goal of Osama bin Laden. He declared holy war on the United States, enjoined Muslims to kill Americans indiscriminately and vigorously attempted to mobilize Muslims everywhere for his jihad. He has not succeeded in this effort, in part because of the many divisions within Islam. The United States, on the other hand, has declared a global war on terrorism, but in fact there are many wars by different governments against different terrorist groups. The United States is primarily concerned with Al Qaeda; other governments are concerned with their own local terrorists.
The makings of a general clash of civilizations exist. Reactions to September 11 and the American response were strictly along civilizational lines. The governments and peoples of Western countries were overwhelmingly sympathetic and supportive, making commitments to join with the United States in the war on terrorism. This was particularly true of Britain, Canada and Australia, societies that share a common Anglo culture with Americans, and they quickly committed military forces to this effort. Strong support was also manifested among Germans, French and other European peoples, who staunchly identified themselves with America and its cause. They saw the attacks on America as attacks on themselves, a view epitomized in the famous Le Monde headline WE ARE ALL AMERICANS! and the declaration of Berliners, echoing President Kennedy, “We are New Yorkers.” The leading countries of non-Western, non-Muslim civilizations—Russia, China, India, Japan—reacted with modulated expressions of sympathy and support. Almost all Muslim governments condemned the terrorist attacks, undoubtedly concerned with the threat Muslim extremist groups posed to their own authoritarian regimes. Only Uzbekistan, Pakistan and Turkey, however, provided direct support to the American response, and among major Arab governments only Jordan and Egypt endorsed that response. In most Muslim countries, many people condemned the terrorist attacks, a small number explicitly endorsed the attacks and huge numbers denounced the American response. The longer and the more intensely the United States and its allies use military force against their opponents, the more widespread and intense will be the Muslim reaction. September 11 produced Western unity; a prolonged response to September 11 could produce Muslim unity.
The age of Muslim wars will end when its causes change or are changed. With the succession of generations, the intensity of Islamic consciousness may decline, as it clearly has in Iran. The resentment and hostility of Muslims toward the West could be reduced by changes in U.S. policies toward Israel. In the longer run, however, improvements in the social, economic and political conditions in Muslim countries would be necessary. Governments that fail to meet the basic welfare and economic needs of their peoples and suppress their liberties generate violent opposition to themselves and to Western governments that support them. So also do non-Muslim governments, like those of Russia, India and Israel, that attempt to control Muslim populations who prefer to be misruled by their own kind. While the disunity within Islam seems unlikely to abate significantly in the coming years, the demographic prospects are more optimistic. Birthrates in many Muslim countries have been going down, in the Balkans quite dramatically, but in some Muslim societies, including Saudi Arabia, they remain high. By the 2020s, however, the Muslim youth bulge will be shrinking. Conceivably, then, the age of Muslim wars could fade into history and be succeeded by a new era dominated by other forms of violence among the world’s peoples.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Huntington is Albert J. Weatherhead III University Professor at Harvard and author of “The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order.”