Cooper: Why do you think U.S. media reports portray us as the jihadists’ main enemy?

Aslan: First off, we have to remember that the primary purpose of the media in this country is to sell products, and what sells is sex and violence and fear. It’s not that the media are purposely ignoring the moderate majority of Muslims; it’s that, given a choice between reporting on a conference of Islamic scholars who are fashioning a fatwa against the use of violence in the name of Islam, and reporting on the public beheading of an innocent American — well, tell me which one you’d cover.

I think there is a more conscious coverup, however, on the part of our political leadership. The new buzzword is Islamofascism, which comes from bin Laden’s stated goal to create a “worldwide caliphate,” an Islamic empire that will sweep away the existing governments of the Muslim world and then come after the West. Now, it’s true that this is his goal. But world peace is my goal; that doesn’t mean I have a chance of achieving it. By bin Laden’s own admission, al-Qaeda will never reestablish the caliphate. A few years ago the majority of Muslims in the world didn’t even know what the caliphate was, let alone want it to come back. But when the president of the United States of America, the most powerful man on earth, announced that he was afraid bin Laden could re-create the caliphate, it gave an air of legitimacy to this absurd idea. It emboldened these jihadists and put them in a position of leadership in the Muslim world that they would never have had otherwise. For Bush, talking about the caliphate may have been a good strategy for getting reelected, but it is a terrible strategy for winning this “war on terror” that we’re supposed to be fighting.

Cooper: You started writing your book after September 11, and now we’re just two days away from the fifth anniversary.

Aslan: Five years later, and we’re still asking, “Why did they attack us?” That question has been answered a hundred times over by the jihadists. In their own words they have said that the purpose of the attacks of September 11 was to goad the United States into an exaggerated retaliation against the Muslim world. Then they could frame the U.S. military response as a “war against Islam.” The irony is that it didn’t work at first. The war in Afghanistan had almost unanimous support in the Arab and Muslim worlds, even from some of the U.S.’s staunchest enemies. In one Muslim country, immediately after September 11, hundreds of thousands of people poured into the streets, lit candles, and prayed in an exuberant display of compassion for the U.S. That country was Iran. So even our enemies were supporting us. Bin Laden’s plan hadn’t worked. Then, as we all know, we turned around and attacked Iraq, and what bin Laden had hoped the war in Afghanistan would become, the war in Iraq became.

So in many ways we walked right into his trap. With our foreign-policy positions and the way we’ve conducted ourselves in Iraq and the rhetoric that has come out of this White House, we’ve made it easier for jihadist propagandists to convince the Muslim world that this is a war against Islamic values, traditions, and ideals, and to rally them to the cause of al-Qaeda and jihadism, because they’re the only ones standing up for Muslims. Their plan is working brilliantly. You want to know why we’re losing the war on terror? Because they have the better marketing campaign.

Two days ago the president lumped Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, and al-Qaeda together. These four entities have almost nothing in common. Hezbollah has issued death warrants against bin Laden. Hamas has issued fatwas condemning him and the attacks of September 11. Both these groups want absolutely nothing to do with the global jihadist movement. The only thing they all have in common, besides the use of terror as a tactic, is their Islamic identity, which the president has used to lump them together so that the American people can perceive them as one enemy.

Cooper: In your book you object to the phrase “clash of civilizations,” which is often used to describe the conflicts between the West and Islam. You suggest that “clash of monotheisms” would be more accurate.

Aslan: I coined the phrase “clash of monotheisms” because a clash between Islam and the West would be a conflict between a religion and a geographical location, and that’s ridiculous. Also the fact that we have millions of Muslims in the U.S. who are well integrated into society indicates that this is a mistaken way of thinking.

A Good Deal. A Great Gift. Give The Sun as a holiday gift and save up to 30%.

PRINT

E-MAIL

SHARE

PDF

WRITE TO THE EDITOR

SUBSCRIBE