George Jonas National Post

Monday, November 18, 2002

When the audio tape attributed to Osama bin Laden was released last week, the voice that threatened America's allies didn't issue its warning in the name of al-Qaeda. It didn't purport to speak for Iraq, Indonesia, Chechnya or the Palestinian territories. Though the voice listed them all, it spoke for what it called "the Muslim nation."

"As you assassinate," bin Laden said to the West, naming each of six countries in turn, from Australia to Great Britain, and from Canada to Italy, "so will you be assassinated. As you bomb so will you likewise be. So the Muslim nation begins to attack you with its children, who are committed before God to continue the jihad, by word and by the sword."

About two days later U.S. President George W. Bush also made a set of remarks as he began a meeting with UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan.

"By far, the vast majority of American citizens respect the Islamic people and the Muslim faith," Mr. Bush said, while dissociating his government from intemperate comments about Muslims made by some televangelists, whom Mr. Bush didn't name. The President probably referred to Pat Robertson who reportedly said recently that Muslims were "worse than the Nazis" or to Jerry Falwell who in a TV interview last month described the prophet Mohammed as a "terrorist."

"It is encouraging to hear President Bush address the issue of Islamophobic rhetoric in our society. We hope the President's rejection of anti-Muslim hate speech will be followed by similar statements from other elected officials and from mainstream religious leaders," commented Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) communications director Ibrahim Hooper.

No disagreement here. It's indeed encouraging for the general cause of peace and tolerance in the world that President Bush repudiates excessive or thoughtless statements and reaffirms fundamental Western values. But it would be equally reassuring for leaders of Islamic countries, from Egypt to Saudi Arabia, to have issued similar statements following the speech attributed to bin Laden.

It would have been reassuring to hear one or more major figures in the world of Islam say that "the vast majority of citizens of Muslim countries respect the American people and the Christian faith." Except this didn't happen. Nor did Mr. Hooper express the hope that it might happen. He didn't offer to repudiate what Osama bin Laden said while purporting to speak for the "Muslim nation." Mr. Hooper expected "other elected officials and mainstream religious leaders" to follow the President's example and declare that Pat Robertson and other televangelists don't speak for America, but he didn't offer to declare, or call on Muslim leaders to declare, that "bin Laden doesn't speak for Islam."

So what we're left with is bin Laden declaring that he speaks for the "Muslim nation," which now "begins to attack you with its children," without anybody saying: "No, bin Laden, you do not. You do not speak for the millions of peace-loving Muslims. You speak only for a handful of terrorists."

So far we've heard nothing from the millions of peace-loving Muslims. We heard nothing from their political leaders in Islamic countries. We heard nothing from their spiritual leaders, at home or in the West. We heard nothing from the spokespeople of CAIR. If it weren't for President Bush's assurance that millions of peace-loving Muslims exist, we wouldn't know it. They're silent, except when some exhort us, like Mr. Hooper, to keep declaring through our "elected officials and mainstream religious leaders" that Muslims are peace-loving.

I don't doubt that they are, only I wouldn't mind hearing it from them for a change. It was great to hear it from President Bush, but now I'd like to hear it from CAIR.

Whatever Pat Robertson said, he blew up nothing. However injudicious Jerry Falwell's remarks have been, he didn't threaten anyone with assassination. Robertson or Falwell cannot be mentioned in the same breath with Osama bin Laden -- yet as soon as they spoke, the President dissociated his government and his country from them. "I'll remind the Secretary-General," he said, "that our war against terror is a war against individuals whose hearts are full of hate. We do not fight a religion."

Did Muslim leaders, secular or religious, say anything to dissociate themselves and their faith from bin Laden when he declared his jihad against "the Crusaders and the Jews"? Did the ruler of a supposedly friendly Arab country, such as Saudi Arabia or Jordan, say, as Mr. Bush did, that "the comments that have been uttered do not reflect the sentiments of my government"?

When asked this question, Arab and Muslim commentators usually reply that (1) we have said it, and (2) why should we be obliged to say the obvious? The two replies are offered in the same breath, though reply no. 1 is negated by reply no. 2, and reply no 2. is worthless. On this test, President Bush shouldn't be obliged to say the obvious either -- i.e., that "ours is a country based upon tolerance" and that we won't let "terrorists cause us to change our values" -- yet he's not only saying it, but CAIR demands that he and other leaders should say it even louder and more often. They're right to demand it because in such situations the obvious isn't obvious unless it's stated loudly and often -- except this is no less true for CAIR than for President Bush. The difference is that Mr. Bush is actually saying it, while Muslim countries and communities say little beyond reiterating their own grievances.

Sorry. Reiterating grievances isn't enough to convince the world that bin Laden is only engaged in wishful thinking when he says he speaks for "the Muslim nation."

-- Anonymous, November 18, 2002