I Think I'm Ready To Fly Away“I Think I’m Ready to Fly Away” (photo: DiaTM/Flickr, by-nc-nd 2.0)

“However much we try to distinguish between morally good and morally evils ways of killing, our attempts are beset with contradictions, and these contradictions remain a fragile part of our modern subjectivity.”
Talal Asad, On Suicide Bombing

You can often detect it when a politician or journalist uses a word like “barbaric” to describe the actions of any suicide bomber before, on, or after 9/11: the assumption that “Islamic terrorism” represents an uncontainable hostility toward modernity.

The extremists, on this view, are primitive; we are civilized. They are irrational; we are people of prudence and reason. This is the “clash of civilizations” narrative that has held sway in the West for generations, but with a special power in the last decade.

Yet as anthropologist Talal Asad points out, the histories of Europe and Islam are not so neatly separated and thus the clash of civilizations rhetoric ignores a rich legacy of mutual borrowings and continuous interactions among Christians, Jews, and Muslims. More than that, though, the very selective heritage that shapes a people (that strange, unknown hybrid called Judeo-Christianity, for instance) often bears no relation to the hard facts on the ground — to the way people self-identify, to what they do, how they negotiate the world, and so on.

The concept of jihad is a case in point. Asad notes that the term is not central to Islam, but Western histories of the religion have made it integral to an Islamic civilization rooted in religion. In fact, jihad has been a subject of centuries-long debate among Muslim scholars of different historical and social contexts. It is simply not part of a transhistorical Muslim worldview but rather belongs to, as Asad writes, “an elaborate political-theological vocabulary in which jurists, men of religious learning, and modernist reformers debated and polemicized in response to varying circumstances.”

All of which is to say that the West’s tidy narration of Islam vis-a-vis modern liberal social orders has posited a set of very persuasive yet fictive binaries: freedom vs. repression; savagery vs. the rule of law; legitimate warfare vs. terrorism. So much so that in the deeply partisan, brutally contentious world of American politics, both Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, routinely employ a model in which, Asad says, “rational democrats in the West react defensively to destructive terrorists from the East.”

The point here — mine and most certainly Asad’s — is not to condone or justify atrocities committed by extremists. Osama bin Laden was a bad guy and the violence he was responsible for indefensible. Period. The point, instead, is to question the moral high ground America regularly claims in response to criminals like bin Laden and to ask the difficult questions that arise from inhabiting such a lofty perch.

The point also is to be willing to entertain unsettling answers to these questions — to name the contradictions that beset our attempts to rationalize, and celebrate, state-sponsored violence while we categorically condemn, and punish, rogue terrorism.

Can we begin to acknowledge that violence is embedded in the very concept of liberty that lies at the heart of liberal social orders like the United States of America? As Wendell Berry puts it in a poem, “When they want you to buy something they will call you. When they want you to die for profit they will let you know.”

Can we begin to acknowledge that there is no moral difference between the horror inflicted by state armies and the horror inflicted by insurgents? Shot-off limbs, dead babies, destroyed livelihoods — these are the on-the-ground realities whether the munitions come from teenage suicide bombers or the U.S. military.

Can we begin to acknowledge that Americans seem to take a de facto stance in which war is condemned only in excess but terrorism in its very essence?

Can we begin to acknowledge that terrorists often talk about what they do in the language of necessity and humanity (as do five-star generals and American presidents)? But, as Asad notes, the banal fact is that “powerful states are never held accountable to [war crimes tribunals], only the weak and the defeated can be convicted of war crimes and crimes against humanity.”

Can we begin to acknowledge that, as Asad perceptively puts it, “human life has differential exchange value in the marketplace of death when it comes to ‘civilized’ and ‘uncivilized’ peoples” and that “this is necessary to a hierarchical global order.”

Can we begin to acknowledge that events in recent days ought to disturb us sufficiently to resist the prepackaging of acceptable responses by corporate-controlled media outlets?

To entertain the possibility that the violence wrought in the name of “liberty and justice for all” bears a moral equivalency to that waged by operatives of al-Qaeda is not to impute sinister motives to the American military or its leaders. Not at all. That’s the easy, cynical view born of occupying the moral high ground on another plane.

But the uneasy truth remains: Osama bin Laden is dead, and we have killed him. And the story of violence continues — his, ours, and the inextricable link between the two.


Debra Dean Murphy

Debra Dean Murphy is an assistant professor of Religion and Christian Education at West Virginia Wesleyan College and serves on the board of The Ekklesia Project. She regularly blogs at Intersections: Thoughts on Religion, Culture, and Politics.

We welcome your reflections, essays, videos, or news items for possible publication on the Being Blog. Submit your entry through our First Person Outreach page.


Share Your Reflection

Filtered HTML

  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd><span><div><img><!-->
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Embed content by wrapping a supported URL in [embed] … [/embed].

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
7Reflections

Reflections

For me, Flannery O'Connor's hard hitting short story "A Good Man is Hard to Find" remains a visceral and remarkably resonant illustration in fiction (esp. post-Sept. 11) of ideas you discuss here, Debra. Thank you for this fine, acutely perceptive essay.

A baby killed in the invasion of Iraq by the 500 lb. smart bomb is no more or no less an act of terror then the beheading of someone on camera. Let us put aside the idea that we are justified in killing innocent people as collateral damage.

If we had truly been a Christian Nation (a false notion) and 9/11/01 went as the official fairy tail goes wouldn't we have invaded Afghanistan not with armies and bombs but with the Peace Corps to shame them with our fairness and love of neighbor.

We have killed a figure head just or unjustly.
It is funny that we belong to a nation that believes in morel and ethhical laws and justice, yet we denigned this man that opportunity to plead his case in front of a Judge and Jury.

Yes. Yes. Yes.

"Can we begin to acknowledge that violence is embedded in the very concept of liberty that lies at the heart of liberal social orders like the United States of America?"

I am not sure in what way violence is "embedded in the very concept" of liberty. That seems a strange conception of liberty to me.

"Can we begin to acknowledge that there is no moral difference between the horror inflicted by state armies and the horror inflicted by insurgents? Shot-off limbs, dead babies, destroyed livelihoods — these are the on-the-ground realities whether the munitions come from teenage suicide bombers or the U.S. military."

This statement seems to presuppose a moral philosophy of consequentialism, or utilitarianism, which ultimately means the ends justify the means. Perhaps the author means to merely suggest that a tragedy is always tragic, that horror is always horrible, but to claim "moral" equivalence in such terms is to fail to make the distinction between such basic acts as murder and self-defense, for example. This seems quite an extreme view. 

I am not ready to "acknowledge that there is no moral difference" between such acts. Not in terms of general principles, at least.

Of course, I can agree that states, militaries, politicians, historians, etc, can engage in jingoistic platitudes and rhetoric to support horrible acts in the name of honorable virtues, but let's be careful not to do the same injustice with our own rhetoric by decrying that liberty is no more worthy a virtue than terrorism, or by ignoring that the "corporate-controlled media outlets" have called for careful reflection as well as celebration in the case of bin Laden.

I think I agree with much of what the author's sentiment is here regarding the disturbing nature of this particular incident, but I think we should be careful with the words and concepts we throw around here. This is not time to be cavalier with the ideas of liberty and morality. I believe these principles deserve better treatment than they have received in the above commentary.

 Us is good. Them is bad. Until we learn that we are all US and not the US of United States, there will be violence. Until we see our own shadow and see the violence we individually and collectively we perpetrate, there will be violence. I have hope that as more of "us" grasp this, things will change for the better.

 The summary in the last paragraph speaks volumes.  "Osama bin Laden is dead, and we have killed him.  And the story of violence continues........"

Thank you, Debra, for your clarity of thought and expression.

apples