GOOD OLD OUSSAMA !!!

In one of his statements some years ago, Bin Laden spoke of "the humiliation and shame which the Muslims have suffered for more than 80 years," this sent Middle-east experts and many others looking for explanations , some explanations were offered, most of them totally inaccurate.

He was referring with no doubt to the end of World War I, and the final defeat of the Ottoman Empire, the last, the most enduring and, in many ways, the greatest of the Muslim states and empires. For Oussama Bin Laden and those who thought like him, this was the low point, the final defeat, it was indeed, in his perspective, a moment of humiliation, of bitterness, of defeat.

It is , in a very real sense, the turning point, the beginning of a new era. The struggle between Islam and Christendom had been going on for considerably more than a millennium. One can trace it through its various stages of crusade and jihad, attack and counter attack, conquest and re-conquest through the centuries but ending in what seemed in 1918 to be the final and total defeat of Islam. This sense of history, this awareness of the larger historical perspective is essential for the understanding of what he and his like say and how those to whom they say it respond.

The question that one must ask, is why is it that this man evoked so tremendous a response all over the Muslim world and beyond? what was his appeal ? I think one may give three answers to this, all of which are relevant.

The first is his eloquence. Eloquence has always been a quality greatly admired in traditional Arab culture. His depth, breadth and force of eloquence, moved crowds. This is part of the tradition, a quality much appreciated, greatly admired, but in recent history rarely practised. The form of government prevailing in most Arab countries at the present time relies on force, not persuasion, to secure loyalty and obedience. there is also the fact that most of the rulers now come from the military, a profession of many merits, of which eloquence is not normally one. Oussama bin Laden's command of the Arabic language was truly remarkable, he used it forcefully and very effectively and that won him admiration from many of those who listened to him.

The second was his lifestyle. In the modern Middle Eastern world, the normal pattern is rags to riches, usually by the exercise of force, with the riches then being shared with other members of one's family, one's solidarity group. There is corruption in every civilisation, but corruption takes different forms and levels in the Middle East. In western societies corruption takes this form; you make your money in the market-place, through economic activity, and then you use that money to buy power or, at least, to buy access or influence. The Middle Eastern pattern is the exact opposite; you seize power, and you use the power to make money. Morally, I can see no difference between them. This makes the case for Bin Laden even more dramatic. Here is a man who was born to riches and comfort and chose a life of hardship, danger and humility. One cannot, fail to see the appeal that this would have in those societies.

Third, and perhaps most important of all, is the message that he brought. I would describe it as rejection. He is rejecting not so much western power, as domination, though it is often presented that way. No, it is not so much against power as, rather, against influence; western ways, western ideas, western notions, western practices which have become dominant. And it is, therefore, against the "westernizers" rather than against the westerners, that the main anger was directed. He was against the whole notion of westernisation, which he saw as a form of apostasy, an abandonment of authentic Islam in favour of adopting alien and infidel ways. And for him and those who agreed with him, most of the rulers of the Muslim world are no longer Muslims, though they pretend to be. They are renegades or apostates.

The second element of his message, was the feeling he tried to portray that the tide has turned, that the west has become weak, the west is in retreat, and that it is now their great opportunity to reassert themselves and win victory. The defeat and collapse of the Soviet Union ,was to Oussama bin Laden and his followers the greatest of victories, the west tend to think of this as a victory for the free world over the Soviet Union, ending the cold war. That is not how he saw it, in his perception this was a victory of Muslims over infidels. They drove the red army in defeat out of Afghanistan, back home to defeat and collapse. One must agree that this explanation is certainly not lacking in plausibility. this was certainly the immediate cause, at the very least. This gave them the feeling, and it reflected in their statements and actions that; there were two great infidel superpowers, we have defeated one- the more difficult, the more dangerous, the more deadly, the more vicious. Dealing with the other will be comparatively easy.

This is related to a certain perception of the western world in general and of the United States in particular which was constantly reiterated and expressed in many of his messages, hit them and they will run, these can only have strengthened the perception that they were dealing with a soft, pampered, defeated enemy.

If you look at the accusations against the United States over the last few months all over the Middle East and, more particularly, the charges of American imperialism, if you look into the details, you will see that what they are complaining about is not American imperialism but the LACK of American imperialism. They are complaining that the United States is failing to fulfill its imperial duties as the greatest power of the world, with a duty to solve disputes, adjudicate between rival peoples and between peoples and their self imposed regimes.

There was a widespread belief in the Middle East that freedom and independence were two different words for the same thing. In recent times the people have discovered painfully that they are not two different words for the same thing, they are two different things. The ending of imperial domination and the establishment of independent national regimes all too often meant the replacement of foreign overlords by domestic tyrants, more adept and more intimate and less constrained in their tyranny.

Inspired, Compiled and arranged by me from excerpts from a lecture by professor B. Lewis around the beginnings of this century at the university of Toronto, again thanks and salamat.