Letters

National Interest, The, Fall, 2000

Why is Necmettin Erbakan a "fundamentalist" and his erstwhile protege, the late Turgut Ozal, not? The latter accepted traditional Muslim beliefs and practices, advocated a wider public role for Islam in Turkey, and followed an educational and career path quite similar to the angry young men of Algiers. The difference lies in that whereas Erbakan desired to see Turkey become a leader of western Asia and northern Africa, Ozal was a supporter of NATO, joining Europe, and the anti-Iraq coalition.

It is said that Muslim "fundamentalists" will be bad for minorities and women in the Muslim world. Has anyone noticed that the house of Sa'ud won't let guest workers and diplomats hold Christian services in their country? Or that not a single Gulf state tolerates conversion from Islam to another religion? Or that shaking the faith of a Muslim is against the law in Morocco? But why aren't the governments of these states called "fundamentalist"?

Radical Islamism more often than not represents the unpaid bills of various socialist, militarist, radical nationalist or even communist and post-communist states, all of which ensured that only the most stubborn and uncompromising dissent tended to survive. Nor do I see any real difference between the fanaticism of Hamas and the sort of fanaticism earlier seen in the supposedly "secular" Palestinian factions of the period from 1967-80. It seems to me that if we can mend fences with the Chinese communists, we can probably do the same with Islamists, who might just win in several African, Middle Eastern and Asian states.

Perhaps the best thing we could do for any Muslim state plagued by neo-traditionalist ferment would be to let it work out its best possible internal solution rather than providing a convenient Shaitan for the next generation of agitators--especially since neither our current social science nor our policy machinery seems geared toward dealing with the sorts of questions posed by neo-traditionalist ferment in the Midwest, to say nothing of the Middle East.

PETER J. HERZ

Carbondale, IL

Pipes replies:

Mr. Herz is not a fan of the term "fundamentalist" when applied to Islam. Neither am I. That's why I used the term just twice to ground the reader (as well as once in a quote); and I used the alternate term "Islamist" or "Islamism" fifty-two times-including the title. So, why the lecture, Mr. Herz? Next time, how about reading the article beyond the first line before shooting off a letter to the editor?