Muslim
Decline Causes and Remedies (JR 151)
Introduction
Myriad
problems afflicting Muslims today are of our own making. The combined GDP of a
billion plus Muslims living in some 56 sovereign Muslim states is less than
that of Japan. Barring a few countries like Malaysia and Turkey,
most Muslim states are underdeveloped.
Pakistan
has seven million children who do not go to schools, including 2.3 million
between the ages of five to nine. Not a single university in the whole Islamic
world remotely approaches the stature of European or American universities.
There
was a time when Islamic civilization was considered to be the most advanced,
tolerant, highly developed and progressive civilizations in the world. This was
mainly because of their accomplishments in practically all disciplines of
knowledge. The situation changed radically after the 16th century AD Learning
and inquiry was no more the motto of the Muslims with the result that today
they occupy the lowest position in the ladder of the global world. They are educationally
backward, scientifically marginal, politically insignificant and economically
poor. This is the present status of the entire Ummah amongst the comity of
nations.
Muslim
Decline (middle 13 th. to middle 19 th. centuries),
Causes
The second decline of the Muslim
world, its Dark Age, dates roughly from the beginning of the twelfth/eighteenth
century to the middle of the thirteenth/ nineteenth century. With the exception
of Indonesia where decadence started earlier, all the Muslim countries witnessed
a terrible decline not only in their political status but also in their
intellectual and cultural life soon after the awakening of Europe from a long
slumber, an awakening which was the result of her intellectual, scientific, and
philosophical movements.
While the Ottomans lost their glory
after Sulaiman the Magnificent, the Safawids after Shah `Abbas the Great, and
the Mughuls in India after Aurangzib, the European nations went from strength
to strength, acquiring more and more territories and trade centers from the
Muslim rulers, defeating them on land and sea, and finally pronouncing the
Muslim empires to be suffering from incurable diseases.
Causes of Decline
A. Political Causes of the Catastrophic Decline
1. Turkey
Sulaiman the Magnificent (6 November 1494 – 6 September 1566 ) was the last and the greatest of the first ten Ottoman
Sultans who together in a period of three centuries raised Turkey from nothing
to one of the most dreaded and powerful empires of the world. But climax was followed
by decline, so we find signs of decadence appearing in the later part of
Sulaiman's reign. According to Kotchi Bey, a Turkish historian, the decline or
at least the signs of decline are visible towards the end of Sulaiman's reign
can be attributed to the following causes:
1.
Sulaiman did not participate
regularly in the deliberations of the Council of State but listened to the
discussions only from behind a veil. His successors dispensed even with this
formality. The result was that the king, instead of profiting from the mature
and seasoned advice of the councilors, acted arbitrarily or was in most cases
swayed by the opinion of his harem and the prejudiced views of flatterers and
fortune-seekers.
2.
Sulaiman would appoint men to offices
of trust and responsibility without their having them pass through the grades
of lower offices, e.g., Ibrahim was promoted from the post of Master of the
Pages to that of Grand Vizier. The criterion of appointments to high offices of
the State was friendship, flattery, and the recommendation of the harem and not
merit, experience, or intelligence. Sulaiman permitted his favorite viziers to
amass wealth. Rustam Pasha, a son-in-law of Sulaiman, remained Grand Vizier for
fifteen years. He was skilled, in the art of filling the Government treasury
through exactions of large amounts of money from persons appointed to State
offices.
3.
These exactions fixed during
Sulaiman's own time became arbitrary and exorbitant later in the hands of his
successors, so much so that the office of tax-collector went to the highest
bidder. State officials whether high or low tried their utmost to amass as much
wealth as possible by fair or foul means.
4.
This tendency to grow richer and
richer through corruption, nepotism, and exploitation, though immediately
beneficial, often led the officials concerned into troubles. The bare fact that
an officer was enormously rich was a sufficient proof of his being dishonest
and corrupt, and, therefore, a sufficient ground for his being exposed to
condemnation. Many rich officers lost their lives on charges of corruption, and
their property was confiscated by the Government.
The immediate effect of these
malpractices was not great, but in course of time, especially when the Turkish
Empire fell on evil days, they assumed enormous importance and became potent
causes for its downfall.
A brief mention may be made of the
Janissaries who revolted against Sulaiman the Magnificent when he withdrew from
Vienna in 936/1529 realizing the futility of his campaign. The Janissaries were
a military force recruited from the Christian youth. They came into being
during the reign of Murad I (760/1359-790/1389). They not only proved a weapon
of rare strength in wars against the enemies of the Ottoman Empire, but also,
because of their loyalty and devotion, helped the Sultans in keeping turbulent
forces under control.
The Janissaries were a useful
instrument in the hands of strong Sultans, but in the times of degenerate
Sultans they became a kind of Praetorian Guard, dictating the deposition of
Sultans and the nomination of their successors. In the eleventh/seventeenth and
the twelfth/eighteenth centuries, they became a menace to the State and were
given short shrift by Mahmud II in 1242/1826.
Another important event which took
place during the reign of Sulaiman the Magnificent was his granting of
preferential treatment to France in matters of trade and commerce, and also his
allowing her to establish consular courts and exercise judicial rights over the
French subjects in the Ottoman Empire. This was done to counteract, through
alliance with France, the power of the Holy Roman Empire in South-East Europe.
After Sulaiman, when the Sultans lost their prestige, other Christian powers
demanded the same political and commercial concessions as were accorded to the
French and obtained them as a matter of fact.
This proved very dangerous. It not
only led the foreign Christian powers to foment troubles on the plea that
discrimination was practiced against the Christians but it also made the
Christian subjects look to anti-Ottoman powers for help and survival. The
loyalty of the Christian subjects thus became divided; indeed, their loyalty to
outside powers exceeded their loyalty to the Ottoman Sultans. To every
subsequent reform that the young Turks aimed at, "capitulations"
served as a major handicap.
It was not possible to weld the
Christians into the body politic, so they were jealous of their separate
entity. Their separatist feelings were fanned partly by the agents of foreign
Christian powers and partly by the mishandling of the situation by the
unintelligent and unimaginative Sultans of the later period.
The Sultans who succeeded Sulaiman
possessed neither the imagination nor the political acumen necessary to keep a
vast empire intact. They frittered away their energies in petty squabbles,
meaningless intrigues, and frivolous avocations. Little did they realize that
in an age of technology and science their old weapons would prove worse than
useless. Their defeat in 1094/1683 sealed their fate in Europe. But for the
mutual bickering of the European powers, the Ottoman Empire could not have
maintained its frontiers for any length of time. Then there was the growth of
Western imperialism and also the emergence of Russia as a strong centralized
State, both of which turned the scales against the Turks.
In the twelfth/eighteenth century the
Muslim empires all over the world began to show signs of weakness and decay.
This synchronized with the rapid strides of the European powers in technology
and industry. These powers had developed superior naval military equipment as
well as war strategy. The Muslim powers, quarrelling as they were among
themselves, sought for the latest weapons from the Europeans who found thus a
splendid chance to enter into the complexities of Oriental political intrigues
and turn them to their advantage.
They meddled in the affairs of the
Mughul Empire in India, the Mamluk rulers of Egypt, the Safawid monarchs of
Persia, and, last but not least, the Sultans of the Ottoman Empire. The
interfering powers were the English, the French, the German, the Dutch, the
Spaniards, the Portuguese, and the Russians. This will show that practically
every European power, impelled by her superior technical skill and actuated by commercial
and imperialistic ambitions, set out to bring under their dominance as much of
the Muslim world as they possibly could. The Muslim powers were no match for
them.
During this period, the Turks made
several attempts to reform the army and the administration of the Ottoman
Empire. These reforms go by the name of tanzimat. They were undertaken to save
the Empire which had been enfeebled externally and internally, but for one
reason or another they all failed. After the Crimean War, the Turkish Empire
continued to decline so much so that it came to be known as the "sick man
of Europe"-a sick man whose days were numbered.
The question then is, why did Turkey
suffer so miserably that her condition was declared to be incurable, not only
by her foes but also by her friends? Many causes have been pointed out in
answer to this question. It is said that the in-conclusive wars between the
Ottoman and Persian Empires during the tenth/sixteenth to twelfth/eighteenth
century weakened and exposed them both to European commercial penetration; that
the Ottoman principles of administration were actuated by a desire for the
well-being not of the State but of the sovereign; that the tenure of the Pashas
was very short and that their high office could be purchased by bribery; and
that the authority of the Sultans was weakening as the brief noontide of the
Ottoman Empire passed.
It is also alleged that the Ottomans
had been in Europe for over two hundred years-an extremely long time for an
Oriental dynasty to retain its aggressiveness. Moreover, the tactics which had
sufficed against the lions of Hungary had become hopelessly antiquated by the
middle of the eleventh/seventeenth century. Coupled with these causes was the
degeneracy of the Sultans. The supreme power of the State had fallen into the
hands of the viziers or those of the harem-the centers of intrigues and
corruption.
More explicitly, the allegation is
that it was neither the Sultan who governed, nor the viziers who administered;
the power was actually in the hands of necromancers and purchased slave-girls.
Moreover, there were outrageous taxes and general corruption in the army, in
which promotions were likewise made through bribery and not on merit.
Even after all this has been
admitted, it remains a fact that the explanation in terms of external and
internal factors would be incomplete unless one keeps in view the machinations
of foreign powers which finally destroyed the Empire. "It was not
corruption, not misgovernment, not inefficiency-that spelt the ruin of the
Ottoman Empire. These things had always been present, but the Empire had
remained. What destroyed it in the end was the pressure of European
ambitions.... The Ottoman Empire died of Europe. "
2. Persia
Two powers, the Uzbeks (Uzbegs) in
Turkestan and the Safawids in Iran, arose after the break-up of the Timurid
power. It was at the hands of Shaibani Khan, the first ruler of the Uzbeks,
that Babur, the founder of Mughul dynasty in India, suffered defeat. Because of
his discomfiture, Babur turned his attention to India and laid the foundation
of an empire which lasted till 1274/1857.
The Safawids began as leaders of a
Shi'ite dervish-order in Azharbaijan and turned to politics after the collapse
of the Timurid Empire when every chieftain took advantage of the chaotic
conditions and tried to establish himself. In 904/1499 their leader Isma'il
proclaimed himself the leader of all Shi'ites, and three years later he took
the title of Shah. To the Safawids belongs the credit of making Persia a nation
once again. The rise of the Safawid dynasty marks the restoration of the
Persian Empire and the recreation of Persian nationality.
The Safawid State reached its peak
during the reign of Shah 'Abbas the Great. With a few exceptions, the
successors of Shah 'Abbas were a band of incompetent persons who reveled in
atrocities, and exhibited utter indifference to serious matters of the State.
The major cause of the misfortune of the Persians is associated with the
interference of the Europeans in the internal affairs of Muslim countries on
one pretext or another.
The Napoleonic invasion of Egypt in
1213/1798 marks the beginning of modern history in Iran. Napoleon's plan to
reach India through Iran was taken seriously by the English. Hence they
advanced from the east. With Russia on the north and the English on the east
Persia was virtually encircled. It was only on the Turkish side that her
frontiers remained undisputed. Due to encirclement, Persia could do nothing but
promote the cause of Britain and Russia in turn.
Many wars were fought between Persia
and Afghanistan at the instance of Britain or Russia. Both these powers,
however, extended their sphere of influence to consolidate and protect their
respective interests. There was nothing to choose between the Russians and the
British; both vied with each other in the matter of exploitation and
territorial aggrandizement.
The intrigues of the West in Iran
should not be made a ground for putting the responsibility of Iranian decline
on the shoulders of the West alone. The Iranians themselves were mainly
responsible for it. If one's own house is in disorder, one should not blame
others for making capital out of it. In a country where political cohesion is lacking, where there is intellectual stagnation,
religious intolerance, despotism, and authoritarianism, and where there is
sloth, apathy, and indifference, it would not be surprising if it
sinks. During this period Iran did not
produce a single thinker of repute in any branch of knowledge. With the
exception of a few poets, prose-writers, and historians there was no person
worth mentioning.
3. India
The third great Muslim empire, i.e.,
that of the Mughuls in India, was at its zenith during the times of Akbar,
Jahangir, Shah Jahan, and Aurangzib. After Aurangzib, who died in 1119/1707,
there was a rapid decline. The causes of the decline of the Mughul Empire were
many. The Ottoman Empire reached its peak during the regime of Sulaiman the
Magnificent, the Safawids' in the reign of Shah 'Abbas the Great, and the
Mughul Empire in the time of Aurangzib. As Sulaiman the Magnificent and Shah
'Abbas the Great were followed by a long line of incompetent successors, so was
Aurangzib.
In the authoritarian type of society,
if kingship becomes hereditary, it is inevitable that many kings should be
found with little or no initiative. And once rot sets in, it is very difficult
to check it. In Muslim Empires one weakling was followed by another and that by
still another and thus what had been achieved by the personal valor of a few
great persons disappeared in no time. All
the successors of Aurangzib, without exception, were persons of low worth. They
reveled in sensuous pleasures neglecting the onerous duties of the State.
Instead of remedying the evils that had crept into the Mughul body politic,
they kept themselves busy in luxuries and petty intrigues. The Mughul nobility
was in no better condition. They were also corrupted by a life of affluence,
ease, and indolence. Along with the Mogul nobility, the army also deteriorated.
The foreign powers were quick to
perceive the incapacity and rottenness of the Mughul army and also of the
persons who presided over the destiny of the Mughul Empire. In 1152/1739, Nadir
Shah invaded India. By his orders not only were the inhabitants of Delhi
massacred but also the entire wealth of the Mughuls was taken away. Nadir's
invasion left the Mughul Empire "bleeding and prostrate." And then
it was given no time to recuperate as Nadir Shah's invasion was followed by a
wave of invasions conducted by an Afghan chief of the Abdali clan, known as
Ahmad Shah Abdali.
From 1161/1748 to 1181/1767, Ahmad
Shah led several expeditions and inflicted a series of defeats on the Mughuls,
leaving them, after each invasion, very much weaker than before. His invasions
not only broke the back of the Mughul army, but also left the country
financially crippled. Like Nadir Shah he took away everything he could lay his
hands on, leaving the country destitute. These invasions hastened the
dismemberment of the tottering Empire.
During the reign of Aurangzib, Hindus
had started raising their heads here and there, taking advantage of the
unwieldiness of the Empire and the long absence of the monarch from the
capital. They were also dreaming of reviving their past by establishing a Hindu
Empire like that of Asoka or Harsha. Hence the Rajputs, the Satnamis, the
Bundels, the Sikhs, and the Jats of Mathura revolted against Aurangzib and kept
him busy till his end. After his death the turbulent elements grew stronger. A
few new Muslim States-the 'Deccan, Oudh, and the Bengal Subah-which were
practically independent of the titular Delhi Emperor, though outwardly avowing
allegiance to his nominal authority, also arose and added to this confusion.
Neither the Muslims nor the Hindus
were destined to build lasting kingdoms on the ruins of the Mughul Empire. The
nation which ultimately succeeded to found a mighty empire greater than any
which India had witnessed hitherto entered the portals of India in the guise of
traders, seeking commercial privileges and concessions. Having secured a
foothold, they began interfering in the internal affairs of the State in one
pretext or another. Ultimately, because of their cleverness, superior military
strategy, and latest war materials, they wiped off all the forces contending
for supremacy on the Indian soil and became the undisputed masters of the
sub-continent for one century and a half.
These were the British who, acting on
the maxim "flag follows trade," took advantage of the military weakness,
intellectual stagnation, and mutual differences of the rulers, both Hindu and
Muslim. True, there were other European powers like the Dutch, the Portuguese,
and the French fighting for supremacy, but none of them succeeded against
British diplomacy and naval strength and also perhaps against the Britons'
superior knowledge of the Eastern mind.
The British, like the Dutch in
Indonesia, and like themselves and the Russians in Persia and the Ottoman
dominions, played off one ruling power in India against another till these were
exhausted and the British became the masters of the land. The War of
Independence in 1273/1857 was the last effort on the part of the masses to
throw off the foreign yoke.
But it failed miserably and, on the
charge of engineering the revolt, the last Mughul ruler was exiled by the
British to Rangoon where he died in extreme penury. That sounded the
death-knell of the great Mughul Empire. After the War of Independence the
Indian Muslims were almost dead politically, intellectually, and socially. It
was the darkest period for the Muslims of India.
As it always happens when a great
culture is at its zenith, the symptoms of its decline begin to reappear, even
so it is during its darkest periods that the faint rays of light appear, unless
its spark of life is dead and it is destined to speedy extinction. This period
of decadence was not a period of unmitigated gloom. One good thing that
happened was the development of the Urdu language--a mixture of Persian,
Arabic, Hindi, and Sanskrit words, but altogether a new language with infinite
capacity to develop and to expand. Another good thing was the birth of Shah
Wali Allah whose teachings and contributions to the culture and thought of the
Indian Muslims will be found in another chapter of this work.
4. Indonesia
Among the causes which led to the
break-up of the Muslim rule in Indonesia the most important was the intrusion
of the foreign powers, the Portuguese, the Spaniards, the English, and the
Dutch. The first to arrive in the country were the Portuguese, who at the end
of the middle ages had built up a formidable naval power and had gained
valuable experience of sea-warfare through a long series of exploration and
piratical adventures. They were, moreover, charged with a strong crusading
spirit which impelled them to destroy Islam.2
To the religious motive was added, in
course of time, an intense economic urge to wrest the trade monopoly from the
Arabs. "Happily it was possible to serve God and Mammon at the same time,
for by striking at Arab trade in the Indian Ocean, Portugal aimed a blow at the
Ottoman Empire, which drew the major part of its revenue from the spice
monopoly."
Because of their superior war
strategy, the Portuguese, notwithstanding the opposition of the Arabs and other
Muslim traders, could expand their power and influence in no time. Their first
viceroy, Francis de Almeida, had no desire to extend his sphere of influence
beyond the Malabar Coast and was anxious to remain contented with the
commercial gains of that area. His successor, Don Affonso Albuquerque, however,
realized that, in order to increase revenue resources to maintain the growing
power of the Portuguese, and also to curb the maritime activities of the Muslim traders, who could
collect the produce of the Spice Islands, Bengal, Siam, and China from Malacca,
it was necessary that the policy of his predecessor should be given up.
Accordingly he invaded Malacca on July 1, 1511, under his expansionist program.
In the opinion of Crawford, his main motive was to spread Christianity
and to crush the growing power of Islam through the
extension of the Portuguese power and blockading of the Muslims' economic
resources.
It was during the tenure of Don
Affonso Albuquerque that Francis Xavier, a Portuguese Christian evangelist of
outstanding merit and ability, was invited to Malacca in 952/1545 with the
express object of spreading Christianity among the natives. Francis Xavier
was well known for his proselytizing activity, which was financially and
militarily backed by the Portuguese Government. If the Europeans of those days
acted on the principle that the flag followed the trade, they also realized
that the perpetuation or stabilization of their imperialistic and colonial
program required a vigorous policy of conversions to their faith.
The primary object of Portuguese
infiltration in these islands was indeed commercial exploitation, but to this
purpose nothing was more helpful than the creation of a solid block among the
natives who, because of their religious affinities, would support the foreign government
in all matters. As a result of Francis Xavier's missionary efforts, the
Portuguese language, culture, and religion came to the notice of the
Indonesians. The Portuguese sphere of influence increased and a few
nature-worshippers renounced their tribal religion and embraced Christianity.
On the whole, the Christian missionary program met a grand failure in Malacca
and elsewhere, for nowhere could Christianity supplant Islam. The Spice Islands
had been converted to Islam and no amount of coercion or persuasion could lead
the inhabitants away from it. .
After their conquest, the Portuguese
promulgated laws to crush the commercial activities of Muslim and Indian
traders. In this mission Albuquerque had the support of an exiled Muslim Jaja
Utimutis and a non-Muslim officer, Ninachetuen. A reign of terror started in
Malacca. All anti-Portuguese activities were put down with a strong hand.
The Portuguese exploited the internal
differences and the mutual jealousies of the native rulers. Ambassadors came to
Malacca from the Sultans of Siam, Annam, Java, and Sumatra to seek the goodwill
of the Portuguese and to obtain from them modern weapons of warfare which they
could use against their rivals. All this helped the Portuguese to establish
themselves firmly on the Indonesian soil. Military alliance with some of the
important rulers of the islands encouraged Albuquerque to dispatch his fleet to
weaker and less organized islands.
It was not difficult for the
Portuguese to subjugate small principalities scattered here and there over the
islands, for where their military strategy failed, their political diplomacy
succeeded. The annals of the Spice Islands are replete with tales of Portuguese
atrocities, horror, and deceit. Sir Hugue Clifford describes the Portuguese as
swarming into Asia in a spirit of brigandage. Their cruel and capricious behavior
was stimulated by their crusading zeal.
The Spaniards were the second foreign
power to exploit the Indonesians; they were drawn towards these islands by the
enormous profits which the Portuguese had made out of their monopoly of the
spices. Thus, war ensued between the two, which continued for three years. In
936/1529, a treaty was concluded between the contending powers, according to
which both Spaniards and Portuguese could rule over different parts of Malacca.
Till 937/1530, the Spaniards and the Portuguese were the only two foreign
powers contending for supremacy in political domination and commercial
exploitation of the Indonesians. They were helped in their designs by the
internal differences and mutual jealousies of the ruling chiefs who frequently
sought the help of the foreigners to overthrow their rivals.
As in India the English took
advantage of the mutual quarrels of the rajahs of the Deccan and Karnatak, so
did the Portuguese and the Spaniards exploit the dissensions of the ruling
chiefs of Indonesia. Acting on the policy of "divide and rule," the
foreign powers conspired to break up the unity of the Muslim Sultans of the
islands and later used them as an instrument in the furtherance of their
commercial designs. The natives were struck by the superior strategy and war
technology of the foreigners and curried favor with them to obtain their expert
advice and the latest war instruments.
Despite their agreement on their
respective sphere of influence in the island of Malacca, the Portuguese and the
Spaniards could not desist from waging war against each other. Finally, the
Spaniards suffered reverses and were expelled from the Spice Islands in
947/1540. For forty-five years after the expulsion of the Spaniards the
Portuguese ruled over the Islands. Their death knell was sounded by the
arrival of the Dutch in 1003/1595. Thus, the third foreign power which was
destined to rule over Indonesia for about four hundred years, that is from June
2, 1595, to December 27, 1949-a period of colonialism longer than that
vouchsafed to any power so far-was the Dutch.
The Dutch could claim superior war
technology and also better war strategy in their struggle against the local
potentates, but what helped those most was disintegration prevailing in
Indonesia in the eleventh/seventeenth and twelfth/eighteenth centuries and even
earlier. The rulers were weakened by internecine wars and were often compelled
to contract disadvantageous pacts of military and commercial nature to obtain
the latest military weapons from the Dutch and secure their support and
blessings in their own designs.
The harmful nature of these pacts can
be gauged from the fact that in about a hundred years, that is to say, between
1088/1677 and 1191/1777, the whole of Java lay at the feet of the intruders and
what was worse its "merchants and shipbuilders lost their occupations and
the fisheries and forests were no longer profitable. The Javanese became a
people of cultivators and the economic content of their social life was
stunted."
The Dutch introduced a system of
indirect administration through which they utilized the native aristocracy for
the furtherance of their own designs.
The decadent elements of the
Indonesian society were supported by the arms of the Dutch so long as they
helped them in the commercial exploitation of the populace, that is to say, so
long as they deposited in the Dutch coffers whatever amount the Dutch wanted
from the different sections of the society. The result was appalling. While the
utterly rotten aristocracy acquired great powers with regard to the populace,
it degenerated into a pliable tool in the hands of the Dutch and lost its
independence.
Before the arrival of the Dutch, the
Chinese had their trading concerns in Java, though much limited in scope. The
Dutch looked on them with a favorable eye, as it was felt by them that there
were no people in the world that served them better than the Chinese; too many
of them could not be brought to Batavia.
Consequently, the Chinese were
increasingly absorbed in the country's economy. Not only did they retain
imports as originally planned but they also took part in the exports of the
Dutch East India Company. Because of the privileges and powers which the
Chinese enjoyed, their relations with the natives resembled those of the
appointed aristocrats.
At the beginning of the
twelfth/eighteenth century the Company stood at the zenith of its power. But it
collapsed in 1213/1798 and the Indonesian territory was placed under the direct
authority of the Dutch Government. The aristocratic members of the Indonesian
society, however, continued to occupy the topmost positions. To strengthen
their positions, the offices which they held were made hereditary, and they
were allowed to retain a certain percentage of the crop collected from the
natives.
The aristocratic nominee of the Dutch
Government was answerable to the Dutch officer above him and not to the
peasantry whom he kept under strict bondage. The peasants were required not
only to pay fixed land-tax, but also to sow crops needed by the Government and
to put in labor to the amount desired by his foreign and local bosses. The
result of this tyrannous system was that Indonesia was often visited by
widespread famines which took a heavy toll of human and animal life.
As the entire trade was in the hands
of the Dutch and the Chinese, the Indonesians could acquire neither trading
experience nor contact with the market economy. In the words of Van der Kolff,
the cultivation system "caused a gap between the producer and the market
whereby there was no knowledge of the market, no outlet for enterprise, and no
possibility of developing a native trading class."
Moreover, the Dutch-Chinese
monopolists fleeced the peasant to such a degree that it killed all his
creative qualities and initiative as a farmer. The taxes were so heavy that the
peasant was forced to borrow money from the Chinese, the only source of credit,
who lent money at exorbitant rates of interest. The peasant could pay back the
money in kind only; consequently, he was forced to sow the crop acceptable to
the creditor and to sell the same at the rate fixed by him.
The Dutch paid no attention to the
education of the native inhabitants of the colonies except that they allowed a
few families to benefit from learning. According to governmental records,
public primary schools were instituted in 1266/1850. There were no secondary
schools. No library worth the name was to be found in Indonesia before
1235/1819. Officially, a library with about 20,000 books came into existence in
1262/1846, but no native was allowed to enter its precincts till 1313/1895. It
contained Dutch books mostly. The number of Arabic books was negligible.
Politically and intellectually, the
Muslim civilization could not sink lower than it did in Indonesia by the middle
of the thirteenth/nineteenth century.
B. Non-Political Causes
Several non-political causes can be
assigned to the general decay of the Muslim society during the period under
review. As these causes operate in all parts of the Muslim world with varying
degrees of intensity, it would be better to discuss them all at one place. The
political fall of the Muslims was conditioned by factors both external and
internal.
As the external factors were almost
in all cases due to the interference of the Europeans, so the internal factors
were in almost all cases due to the intellectual, moral, and spiritual
bankruptcy of the Muslims themselves. Thus, primarily the Muslims themselves
were responsible for their decadence. The machinations of the imperialistic
nations were helped, or shall we say abetted, by the inefficiency of Muslim
rulers and the colossal ignorance of the masses.
So long as the Muslims were in the vanguard of knowledge, they
led the civilized world in culture, science, and philosophy. But as soon as
they lost interest in free and independent inquiry, they ceased to exist as a
dynamic force. Not only in Indonesia which was
ruled and exploited by a colonial power for a long time, but also in Persia,
Turkey, and India where the semblance of Muslim power existed for some time, one finds absence of interest in
scientific pursuit or genuine philosophical quest.
No one can deny the great urge for
inductive study that existed among the Muslims in the first few centuries of
their era. Nor can one deny the priceless contributions of the Muslims to the world
of scientific and cultural thought. Islam can boast of its splendid thinkers in
every discipline and in every department of human life. There are great names
in the field of physics, medicine, geography, mathematics, astronomy, history,
and linguistics-to mention only a few out of the several branches of human
knowledge wherein the Muslims scored triumph by virtue of their painstaking
study and inductive methods of investigation.
But it is surprising as well as regrettable to note that not a
single scientist of any repute existed in the entire Muslim world from the
beginning of the twelfth/eighteenth century to the middle of the
thirteenth/nineteenth century. On the other hand, what one finds in this period
is a condemnation of the modern scientific knowledge because of its supposedly
anti-religious tendencies.
While the Muslims gloried in the
achievements of the past, they neglected the new weapons of inquiry which the
West had discovered with the progress of science and technology. The result was
a terrible catastrophe. Whereas the other nations progressed, imbued as they
were with modern spirit of inquiry, the Muslims frittered away their energies
in fruitless controversies of a theological and trans-empirical nature. Instead
of imbibing the results of modern science and conducting inductive inquiries,
what they did was to question the compatibility of modern knowledge with their
mistaken views of religion and to pooh-pooh it because of its materialistic
import.
None really understood the meaning of materialism or for that
matter the meaning of spiritualism. What was done, however, was that a
dichotomy was created between the two and in all discussions spiritualism was
overweighed, and materialism run down with all the force that ignorance could
muster.
Since the Muslims in the four
countries mentioned above lacked the capacity to cope with the demands of the
modern scientific world, they regressed as it were to the past and took refuge
in the long exploded myths and dreams which were very good for the time for
which these were conceived and nurtured but quite out of date in the modern
world. Little did they realize that a passionate clinging to the past is an
indication of mental morbidity which leads eventually to death and destruction.
As individuals regress or get fixated
under the stress of life, so do nations. When the realities of life are hard
and unpalatable, decadent communities like neurotic individuals take refuge in
the past and find solace in their earlier achievements.
Generally speaking, the Muslims of this period evinced no
knowledge of that great principle of movement in the social structure of Islam,
technically called ijtihad. This principle has been variously interpreted by jurists, but
all seem to agree, despite their differences, that a reinterpretation of the
Qur'anic injunctions for legalistic and extra-legalistic needs of a society is
not at all forbidden by Islam. On the other band, there are ahadith
of the Prophet which strongly commend the exercise of independent and free
inquiry in the domain of jurisprudence and the enactment of laws for the
welfare of the community.
No doubt, there are differences among
the jurists as regards the nature and scope of ijtihad. But the existence of
this principle and its operation in the early stages of Muslim society is a
clear proof of the fact that Islam never accepted a static view of human
society. The present is never a replica of the past, nor is future a copy of
the present. If exact duplication and identity is abhorred by the course of
historical events, how can socio-political enactments of one age apply in
totality to the socio-political requirements of another age?
The Muslims of all the four countries
under review preferred to rest on their oars and blindly accepted the
interpretations of the past. Acceptance of freedom is not an easy task; it
involves great dangers as Eric Fromm has amply shown. The human mind flees from
freedom, especially if it entails fresh responsibilities and new ventures in
the domain of thought. The Muslims miserably lacked the courage to think for
themselves and consequently flew to the past for shelter. But the inevitable
result of mental procrastination was the creation of a society extremely rigid
and immobile in outlook and intellectual framework.
Blind imitation of the past became
the hallmark of the Muslims. The
verdicts of Imams and jurists were accepted more in letter than in spirit.
While the jurists and other religious thinkers never claimed infallibility or
finality for their legal and theological decisions, the Muslims thought that
the last word had been said on the subject and that amendment or departure
amounted to sacrilege. The early thinkers interpreted and applied the tenets of
Islam according to the needs and requirements of their time. But to suppose, as
the Muslims did, that their solutions were true for all times indicated
incapacity to think afresh in accordance with the changing needs of society.
Not only were the early jurists
quoted in support of legal and social pronouncements, but also the sayings of
the Prophet, quite a good many of which lacked authenticity. No one can deny
the relevance of Hadith, provided its authenticity is guaranteed by
unimpeachable evidence and criteria of sound historical criticism. Some ahadith
do certainly meet these requirements, but not all.
Unfortunately, the religious divines
of this period were not mentally equipped to sift the fabricated and cooked ahadith
from the genuine ones. Hence all sorts of ahadith were dug up to lend authority
and weight to what ever the divines wanted. As most of them had no
acquaintance with old or contemporary scholarship, they relied on cheap
commentaries and second rate catechism. In this way what passed for authority
was not the Qur'an or Hadith or the decisions of jurists, but
the presentation of them by ignorant and bigoted persons.
As a result of reactionary
tendencies, reason became the target of attack and even an object of ridicule.
It was contended that reason was foreign to religious truths and led only to
their distortion and misrepresentation. Consequently, all domains of knowledge
were given scant attention and their findings were not properly appreciated.
Science was discredited on the plea that it led to materialism, and philosophy
was opposed as intellect was debarred from entering the portals of divine
knowledge. Science and philosophy condemned, what remained was a fairy tale,
very comforting to the ignoramus but extremely injurious to the nation as a
whole.
The Muslim mind continued to be fed,
for a century and a half, on fiction and myths. The result can be well
imagined. Not only was there a dearth of scientific thinking in this period but
also an absence of genuine philosophical activity. In the heyday of Islam there
existed thinkers of great repute; they built their philosophies on the
teachings of the ancients but they also made splendid contributions of their
own to the storehouse of human knowledge. The States created the proper
atmosphere for intellectual pursuits.
Throughout the length and breadth of the Islamic world as it
existed during the period under review, one misses freshness and originality of
thought. Philosophy requires a soil and a
climate to grow and develop and where the conditions of a society are such that
neither the proper soil nor the appropriate climate is available; it is hard to
find any activity which can be characterized as critical or intellectual.
Another force which worked negatively
for the Muslims was mysticism. There is nothing basically wrong with mysticism
as such. Every great religion has a mystic strain and so has every great
philosophy, for mysticism is the assertion of a trans-empirical reality which
is one and ineffable, bears resemblance to the human self, and can be realized
through intuition and self-abnegation.
Mysticism records its strong protest
against the intellectualization of philosophy. It maintains that the Ultimate
Reality, union with which is sought by the mystics in their moment of
contemplation, is attainable not through the exercise of ratiocinative processes
or logico-mathematical techniques but through the operation of intuitive
faculty which enables one to see face to face.
As the preceding chapters have amply
shown, among the Muslims there had been great mystics who delved deep into the
realm of the spirit and had moments of great insight. They enriched the
literature of mysticism by their valuable experiences and observations. In the
Dark Age, however, with which we are concerned here, mysticism ceased to exist
as a live force and, instead, degenerated into a mode of escape from the hard
facts of life. According to Karl Mannheim, absorption in transcendental
problems is a characteristic of decadent and retrogressive societies.
Instead of grappling with problems
that face them, they retreat to the world of transcendence and waste their time
in discussing vague and nebulous questions. All mystics in Islam, however, were
not escapists. Some of them, at least, indeed the very best of them, did
realize the urgency and the imperativeness of the problems facing the society
of their time.
But to a large majority of mystics,
unfortunately, interest in worldly affairs was of secondary importance; what
interested them primarily was their preoccupation with the external form of
mystical practices. They decried the ordinary criteria of knowledge, much as
the ignorant mullas did. The mystics of earlier periods had described the
mystic state as the direct experience of Reality, but now the so-called mystics
even preached that ignorance was an advantage in the pursuit of holiness. The
cumulative effect of this doctrine was that the masses lost their faith in the
exercise of reason and regarded it as a Satanic force leading to heresy and
atheism.
But the baneful effect of the
degenerate type of mysticism was not confined simply to the indictment of
intellectual inquiry. It had far-reaching consequences, for as Iqbal says,
"The emphasis that it laid on the distinction of zahir
and batin (appearance and reality) created an attitude of
indifference to all that applies to Appearance and not to Reality." is The spirit
of total other worldliness, Iqbal observes further, "obscured men's vision
of a very important aspect of Islam as a social policy."
A one-sided concern with
transcendentalism indicates, according to psychoanalysts, a state of mental
infantilism. In so far as the path generally adopted by the so-called mystics
of this dark period and their followers ceased to be that of deep contemplation
of or of wrestling with problems through scientific understanding and
experimental control, it was at best the path of least resistance; it degenerated
into a path of controlling supernatural agencies through the recitation of
certain liturgical formulas or by wearing certain amulets and practicing
certain charms.
As the percentage of literacy became
appallingly low in the Muslim world, the credulous masses troubled by want and
privations could be easily deluded into thinking that the recitation of certain
words could rid them instantaneously of all their ills. These short-cuts were
offered by the Sufis to the disciples who avowed solemn faith in them. In
nearly all Muslim countries there arose a long line of hereditary pirs who
claimed direct and immediate contact with eternal verities and professed to
ensure the spiritual uplift of their votaries provided they had unshakable
faith in them.
Thus, along with unquestioning
obedience to the divine Law as embodied in the Qur'an and the Sunnah, there
arose the need for implicit faith in the spiritual leadership of the pir
one chose for oneself. Thus the simple folks were saddled with an authority
more terrible and tyrannous in nature than that of the traditions of a
degenerate society.
Mystic ideas were transmitted to the
disciples only after having induced in their minds a high state of receptivity.
What was thus accepted under stress of emotions took firm roots in their souls
and could not be dislodged by any amount of logic or re-education.
Consequently, there arose among the masses a cult of saint-worship. The unwary
and credulous people did obeisance to the pirs as if they were the incarnations
of God on earth.
Offerings were made to them in all
sincerity; they were required by the disciples to get their desires granted, to
ensure their salvation, and to secure their union with God. The practice of
saint-worship soon developed into the habit of shrine-worship. Annual
pilgrimages to the shrines of saints became the occasions to celebrate their
death anniversaries as national fairs. The saints would be haloed in mists of
lore and legend, and the oft-told tales of their marvels were bathed in glory
of their spiritual effulgence. Little wonder if superstition flourished and
reason remained an outcast.
Pre-deterministic and fatalistic
ideas became an essential part of the creed of the masses. Hence epidemics,
floods, famines, and deaths happened at the appointed hours and nothing could
be done to avoid them. This tendency was encouraged amongst the Muslims by
their appalling ignorance of science and the cheap methods of faith-healing
placed at their disposal by the clever pirsand the so-called Sufis. Fatalism
flourishes in darkness and there was enough of it to spare in the Dark Age of
Islam. The occurrence of an epidemic, poverty, flood, or drought presents a
challenge to a scientist's ingenuity and technological skill. To a fatalist
nothing comes as a challenge, for he is safely enwrapped in his acquiescence
and resignation.
Mysticism not only bred fatalistic
tendencies, it also encouraged indifference to social morality. As the pir
was supremely concerned with the betterment of his soul, so was his protege.
For the spiritual uplift of the soul the cultivation of another-worldly
attitude, asceticism, and renunciation came as necessary prescriptions.
Self-denial and detachment were deemed the highest virtues.
The prevalence of saint-worship and
adherence to the mystic cult left no scope for the development of practical
ethics. The masses could be easily aroused to a high pitch of indignation if
one uttered a word against a so-called saint, but they would not be stirred if
sanitation was neglected or if delinquency prevailed. In this period it was not
noticed that for self-realization the performance of civic duties was as
essential as the performance of the spiritual duties. The neglect of social and
practical ethics cancelled all programs of humanitarian activity and left the
Muslims far behind in the task of social and political reconstruction.
No Muslim country seriously thought
of a social welfare prograe for the regeneration of the masses. If anything
happened in that direction, it was just by chance and not as a result of some
well-planned scheme. The society was left to drift-to sink or to swim as it
may. The chances of its sinking exceeded those of swimming, and it actually did
sink under the severe demands of life and the world around. The decline was all
round. The Muslims lost their empires; the Muslim society went to pieces;
science and philosophy disappeared. Even fine arts and minor arts which were
the distinguishing features of the second period of revival languished
painfully.
The excellent traditions of the early
painting were lost; most of the artistic activity confined itself to producing
bad copies of the paintings of the early masters. The same degeneration
appeared in minor arts. In literature too there was all-round deterioration;
traditional poetry encouraged by the princes retained its charm, but created no
new forms. The greatest poet in the Indian sub-continent before Ghalib was a
weeping poet. Prose became a string of long-drawn-out phrases, cumbersome and
involved on the whole.
The Muslims were at the lowest ebb in
about 1266/1850. The kings and the nobles took to a life of lewdness and
lasciviousness; the masses were ignorant and apathetic; the administration was
bureaucratic and autocratic; and what is worse, no attempt was made to
appreciate and profit by the scientific and technological developments taking
place around them. The West took advantage of the incompetence of the rulers
and the hollowness of the Muslim society. They had superior weapons, better
ships, more effective techniques, strategy, and diplomacy. In addition, they
had qualities of character which the Muslims ceased to possess.
If the strength of a nation is to be
measured in terms of the awareness of a challenge and its acceptance, it can be
said that during the second decline, the Muslim nations all over the world
excelled one another in their lack of understanding of the Western challenge.
The West regarded the solidarity and expansion of the Muslim dominions a
serious threat to its imperialistic and colonial programme. Hence it was out to
throw off the Muslims by whom the challenge was hardly understood. Accordingly,
their response was as weak as their understanding of the challenge.
Muslim Decline (Mid 1960s)
By 1965 Muslims are living all over the globe. There were 220
million Arabs living in 22 countries, ruled by Arabs. 450 Million Muslims were
living in 33 non Arab Muslim countries. The term Darul-Islam is applied to
these independent Muslim countries. Muslims, who are living under the rule of
non Muslims, such as in India, Europe, North America, Russia, and China, are
about 330 Millions. This segment of Muslim population is known as Darul-Harb. Then
there are Muslims who are refugees, roaming all over the world, numbering about
20 Million and they constitute 80 % of the world’s refugee population. This is
called Darul-Muhajireen.
There was a time when Muslims were the masters of the earth, controller
of the destiny, but by then they were on a path of continuous decline. Their
Condition was horrible; they were faceing miserable poverty, illiteracy, malnutrition,
disease and sickness. There was a feeling of helplessness, hopelessness, and frustration
among the Muslims. They are just living, for the sake of living, without any
sense of direction. Neither the rulers, nor the intellectuals of this nation,
have any plan, for this huge mass of suffering humanity.
Muslims had their own social, economic Judiciary and political
system of Khilafat, that was established by Mohammed Rasoolullah and the system
was further advanced by Kulfae Rashideen (rightly guided successor). After 40
years, the system of Khilafa was derailed, and changed into Kingship, though
the rulers continued to call themselves Khalifas. In order to understand the
causes of decline of Muslims, one has to know the fundamentals of Khilafa, as
follows: -
1. The government is
established according to the commandments of Quran, with Allah being the
supreme and sovereign ruler of the state. Man cannot be the sovereign.
2. All power belongs to the
system, not to the Ruler. Khalifa is merely an agency to conduct the affairs of
the state, by the framework given in Quran. When people obey this system,
they do not obey any person, they really obey Quran, the word of God.
3. The Khalifa is the
central authority, on political as well as religious front. It is his
responsibility to meet social, economic and political needs of the people. In
Islam the religion and the state cannot be separated.
4. It is the responsibility
of the Islamic system, to create the conditions within the state, where equal
opportunity is provided for the Psychosocial development of every individual,
on the Quranic line.
CAUSES OF DECLINE OF UMMAH:
A. Political Decentralization: -
Tauheed is the most essential element of Islam. It does not mean
only the oneness of Allah. It also means one nation under one Allah. Mohammed
Rasoolullah (pbuh) established the Islamic state according to Quran. He was the
head of the state, performing the political and religious duties
simultaneously. After his demise, it was the rightly guided Khalifah who
followed the footsteps of the Rasool, with single central authority (markaziah).
Subsequently the system was changed to the dictatorial system, where power
belonged to the individual rulers, not to the system. Now these rulers were not
interested in the religious affairs of people, they took control of the foreign
affairs, treasury, defense and trade and left rituals of Salat, Saum, Hajj,
Zakat, marriage, divorce etc. for the Ulema. So the single centralized
authority was divided into political and religious wings. The rulers invented
the laws to serve their aims and goals and distanced themselves from the
guiding principles of Quran. They did not care for immediate and delayed
deleterious effects of decentralization of the Ummah. The Arabs had not yielded
power over large areas of land and were therefore unaware of the principles of
governing a country and an empire. After the early success the Muslims started
borrowing from the conquered civilizations. The art of governance and running an
empire was aped from these civilizations. Some of the copied Methods and principles
did not find sanction in the Koran and therefore there was serious deviation in
teachings of the Koran and methods of governance employed. Some of the conquest
in itself were not entirely up to the principles laid down by the Koran .
The aped methods resulted in hereditary kinship and dictatorship. In
dictatorship, whosoever gets the power does not want to give it up and likes to
pass it on to his descendants. The end result of this phenomenon is struggle
for power among the successors, and fragmentation of the elite group. This
fragmentation does not stop at the upper-level but trickles down to the
commoners, who start supporting one leader against the other. In this way the united power of the people, required for the
defense of the country, gets misdirected against each other. When Ummayya
became weak in this way, they were easily eliminated by Abbassids who in turn
were decimated by Tatarees. This is the punishment, Muslims received, for
sacrificing the Quranic principal of Tauheed. Allama Iqbal expressed it well: -
There is
death for the nations, in detachment from the center,
There is life for the nations, in attachment
with the center,
B. Religious Sectarianism:
The vacuum left by rulers on religious front was filled by Mullah.
Majority of them were also insincere to the cause of Islam. Most were interested in strengthening their
power and position. Their power grew parallel to the power of the rulers and
they gradually evolved into institutions. The heads of these institutions
became so powerful, that their ruling became the last word. They created
followers and supporters, slowly personality worship started. As they
say, two of a trade seldom agree; Interpersonal jealousy and struggle for power
among the Mullahs, divided one nation into numerous sects. Through these so
called Ulema, non Islamic, Greek Philosophy of Tassawwuff and Mysticism was
introduced in Islam, that had reduced Muslims next to nothing. Today every
Muslim proudly identifies himself with the titles of Sunni, Shia, Ahle-Hadith,
Ahle- Fiqah, Ahle-Quran, Hanfi, Shafi, Malki, Hanbli, Dewbandi Brailwi so on
and so forth. Sufis have not lagged behind, they too have hundreds of Silsilas.
The rulers and Mullah have fragmented one Ummah into so many sects that there
is hardly any hope of reunion in the near future.
Further ruler and Mullah have developed a reciprocal symbiotic
relationship. Ruler gives a special status to the clergy, tax exempt status, to
collect tax free money from people. The clergy on the other hand pays it back
to the ruler, by justifying the illegitimate actions of the rulers with their
fatwas. They brainwash the people not to react against the rulers, and ask them
to accept the status quo. Poor is pacified and put to sleep with the statements
like; “will of Allah, destiny fate, reward in life after death, hate for this
world of materialism, person who suffers here is the dearest to Allah etc.” The
purpose of this is to eliminate the spirit of struggle (Jihad) among the
Muslims, so that the field can be left wide open to the infidels. To give a
sample, look at the verses of Mirza
Qadyyani, and pay attention to what he is preaching: -
Now, forget my friends, the thought of Jihad
In our time, for the sake of deen, haram is
Jihad,
Now the Masseeh has come, the Imam of Deen
This is the end for all the battles for the
Deen,
Now the revelation has come down to say
The fatwa of battle, war and Jihad is nay,
He who calls for jihad, is the enemy of God, now
Believer of jihad, is denier of my prophethood,
now
C. Psychological
Change in Ummah:
Under the Islamic Khilafah, there is a complete freedom for people
to express themselves. As a matter of fact, Islam gives the ultimate freedom
because Quran forbids enslaving of the people; even the Rasool does not have
the authority to subjugate people. Public is encouraged to surrender to the
system not to the Khalifah. In dictatorial system, people do not have freedom
to think and speak against the state. If anyone does dare to speak, he just
disappears, never to be found. So people become fearful and unconcerned with affairs of state. As a result
of this, people learn hypocrisy, and suffer from fear complex. This is why the
nation of 1.2 billion people is facing the crisis of altruistic leadership.
Muslims are suffering from sickness of hypocrisy for the same reason. They
address each other as brother, but act contrary. For the same reason, Muslim
states do not trust each other and are plagued with conflict after conflict,
purposely created by outsiders, to keep them tangled in their internal
disputes. Both rulers and Mullahs are unconcerned with the future of the
nation, as long as they can maintain their respective seats of power. Majority
of us do not even react with our tongues, leave alone the constructive action.
Is this the practice of Islam? Is this the Muslim brotherhood? According to
Quran internal conflicts are the AZABUN-ALEEM (severe punishment). Today Ummah
is caught in a vicious cycle of internal division, conflict, and weakness.
Present Status
of Muslim World
Historically, the Muslim Ummah is the best example of a
universal community. From the flood in the age of Prophet Nuh (Noah) to our own
times, the spread of this Ummah is and has been global. Today, there are some
57 independent Muslim states inhabited by over 900 million people, and over 400
million more Muslims are spread throughout the rest of the world. Consequently,
in every part of the world, there is Muslim presence; in most cases, quite a
significant one.
Globalization as a political, economic, cultural and
technological process is not very new. Throughout history, there have been
waves of globalization, the critical vehicles for this process being migration,
trade and conquest. What is indeed new in our times, however, is the spread,
the scope, the speed, and finally, the structure that is going to imbue the
current trend towards global integration with liberalization, deregulation,
privatization and the hegemonistic contours of capitalism and American power.
These factors combined make the globalization of today, to a great extent, a
unique phenomenon. It is in this context that limitations of time and space are
being annihilated and the entire world is, willy-nilly, becoming one global
city.
The most significant aspects of the contemporary phase relate to
revolutions in technologies concerning transport and communication,
particularly the processes of instant transfer of information. Swift global
interactions and decision-making via new information systems are having
far-reaching effects on the whole matrix of worldwide relations, including the
movement of goods, services and financial flows. These represent developments
with profound consequences, moral, ideological, economic, cultural and
political.
In view of the dominant paradigm of power and civilization,
America and Europe remain major players in the making of this new world order.
American military power and its outreach, political influence, economic strength,
command over technology and almost total control over media, bordering on
virtual thought-control, have given globalization a distinct Euro-American
identity. In the name of promotion of liberalization, privatization, market
economy and modernization, the domination of Western norms, value-systems of
life, socioeconomic institutions, and finally, political and economic interest
is being established over the length and breadth of the world. Along with the
state players, three other powerful actors are in the field, which are the
multinational corporations, the international NGOs and the media.
There is nothing wrong with globalization per se; however, when
the crucial ground realities that comprise the context of globalization are
ignored, serious problems arise. A judicious and honest approach by the Muslim
leadership towards addressing these realities is a must for affording some
relief to the world that is at the suffering end.
The first and the foremost reality of the modern world to be
recognized is the fact that there exist gross asymmetries of political power,
military strength and levels of technological and economic development in
different parts and countries of the world. Foreign rule is nothing new in
history. However, European colonial rule, which held sway over a part of the
world for more than four centuries, has something unique about it. For the
first time ever in human history, during this period, a large-scale physical
transfer of resources took place from the colonies to the colonial overlords;
the so-called mother countries. Consequently, the erstwhile global balance was
destroyed and a new global arrangement appeared which established the authority
of the Western hemisphere and marginalized all other regions, cultures and
people. During the twentieth century, although the colonization process
apparently reversed, Western power gained further grounds because of selective
and lopsided development strategies. As a result, today, one finds a strong
center-periphery relationship that has been embedded into the global system’s
political, economic and technological spheres, and which is primarily
responsible for producing serious deformities and inequities.
Let us glance over certain anomalies. Up until the end of the
eighteenth century, the per capita income of Europe, America, the Muslim World
and the rest of the Third World was within a differential of 1: 2; in certain
parts of the world, it was in favor of the Muslim World. From the nineteenth
century onwards, the trend changed until, at the dawn of the twenty-first
century, 87 percent of the world’s gross domestic product (GDP) is produced in
22 rich countries, while the rest of the world, consisting of some 170
countries and over four-fifths of mankind, tries to survive on the remaining 13
percent. In 1800, Europe’s share in the world’s manufacturing output was hardly
28.1 percent; America’s, less than one percent; while that of the rest of the
world; the so-called Third World of today was almost 67.7 percent. Notably, the
share of the Muslim World was roughly around 40 percent of the world GDP. This
sea change has totally distorted the balance of power in the world and created
a situation where liberalization and globalization only accentuates the
disparities.
Asymmetric economic wealth is both accompanied and accentuated
by asymmetrical political power and military strength. The expenditure of the
US alone on its war machinery is equal to the combined defense expenditure of
all the other countries of the world. US forces are stationed in some 40
countries of the world with an outreach to every corner of the globe.
Technology has reached a state where a target anywhere in the world can be
struck from the US Military Command stationed in Florida. Most of the countries
of the world are dependent on the US arms systems and supplies for their
defense; indeed, the US accounts for 48 percent of the world’s exports of arms
and defence systems.
Muslim World is facing a number of challenges in this era of
information and globalization. The Muslims, by and large, are not behaving as
true representatives of Islam, individually or collectively. Economically, the
Muslim World is poor and dependent on the West. Politically, it is divided like
nine pins. Culturally, it seems to be in a melting pot. In the field of
education, research and technological development, it is far behind the rest of
the world. According to a recent study, the total number of books published and
translated in the Muslims world is barely equal to the number printed in one,
rather less developed, country of Europe, Spain.
The combined GDP of all the 57 Muslim countries of the world is
less than five percent of the world GDP, or to put it differently, less than
the GDP of one European country, Italy which itself ranks as the fifth or sixth
economy in the world. The bulk of Muslim financial resources are in the hands
of and under the management of American and European banks and investment and
management houses. Muslim countries have developed a consumer economy without a
sustainable production base. Despite all of their wealth and resources, almost
all the Muslim countries are languishing under foreign and domestic debt, in a
few cases, with menacing consequences.
Militarily, the Muslims are not only dependent on the West; they
are helplessly caught in its grip. Despite all the expenditure on defense, they
have not been able to even face the threat that has been hammering at the doors
of the Arab and Muslim World for over 50 years in the form of the “tiny,” yet
armed-to-the-teeth entity of Israel.
The state of political freedoms, the level of participation of
the people in the economy and the polity, and the equitable sharing of wealth
and power within Muslim societies is in very bad shape. And unless they set
their houses in order, it is unrealistic to expect that Muslim Ummah can play
their rightful role in the current phase of globalization.
The above being the weaknesses of the Ummah today, it should be
stated that all is not bad news. There are certain positive developments and
there is definitely light beyond the tunnel for the Muslim World.
Islam calls Muslims to a mission, an approach and an effort
rooted in the framework and geared to the ideals outlined above. If Muslims are
prepared to put their shoulders to this harness, the present is struggle, and
future is Islam. But this calls for clear commitment and serious efforts in the
right direction.
Current
situation in the Middle East
Looking at the current economic and
financial crisis, one finds that it has been produced mainly by internal
factors in the global capitalistic milieu. At the root of it are moral problem,
wealth aggrandizement, greed, exploitation, and a system in which economy
remains controlled and manipulated by a handful of powerful players including
investors, speculators, and bankers. Periodically, the balloon becomes
unmanageable, with the dominance of global players and particularly the role of
the government in the modern capitalist system assuming alarming proportions.
That is why on one hand there is now the talk of least government and on the
other government becomes the real player to mange and remedy the failures of
the capitalist system, and its major institutions that are in disarry. The
Middle East and the Muslim World, which make 40 percent of the third world, is
at the receiving end.
As far as the Muslim World in general and
the Middle East in particular are concerned, they are suffering at least on
three counts. First, a huge amount of capital from Muslim countries
particularly oil rich Middle East has been invested in Europe and America over
the years. The continuous devaluation of dollar has deprived the Middle Eastern
investors and savers of almost 40 percent of their total savings and
investments. When stock exchange collapses, those who suffer the most are the
ones engaged in speculation deals and derivatives.
According to some estimates, around 3 to 4
trillion dollars of the Middle East money is in the western markets. According
to some recent reports, total loss during the last 18 months exceeded 9
trillion dollars, which simply means that a large chunk of the valued Middle
Eastern assets has been lost as well. Western powers exercise political manipulation
and control because of this “soft belly” of the Middle East rulers and the
powerful elite.
The second area of loss is shrinking of the
world market. The exports of the third world countries are going down. America
is the biggest market, Europe is the second largest. As markets shrink, the
impact is naturally going to be adverse, especially because of the wider base
of the export commodities. It is then the common man who suffers.
The third dimension, now coming up, is that
of the real estate and stock exchange markets. The recent Dubai collapse is a
spillover effect of that and it is having a direct effect on the economies and
the economic players, businessmen, bankers, and depositors all over the world.
Now coming to the linkage of global
economic crisis with energy, almost 70 percent of the world energy resources,
oil and gas, are in the Muslim lands, not only in the Middle East but Central
Asia as well. Moreover, the overall political hegemonistic designs, and the
economic interests of the US in Iraq and Afghanistan, Central Asian states and
even in Pakistan are also very important dimensions indeed. For that matter,
the United States wants to ensure that production of oil, the quantity explored
and the refinement of petroleum products remain within its tight grips. The
dependence of the Middle East and the Muslim world on America, Europe and their
multinationals is inbuilt in the global capitalist system. Besides, it is also
linked with the political wars, political pressures, regime changes, making and
unmaking of blocs, which are very much a part of West’s energy politics.
Furthermore,
and rather unfortunately, genuine interests and interests based on exploitation
and manipulation are interrelated. As is rightly said, you can not drink oil,
you have to sell it. But the questions that remain unanswered are: on what
terms; in what quantity; in what form; and at what price? In 1973, the Arab
World used oil as a weapon and it proved effective. But after that, the West
has changed its strategy in such a manner that this leverage is now
marginalized, though not entirely eroded. The greater mishap today is the
Muslim leadership’s lack of vision, courage and capacity to use this vital
energy leverage. This is why the oil and energy lobby, and the military-industry
conglomerates of America and the West are now calling the shots. Their bankers and investors are real game
players. In the prevailing scenario, the Islamic world’s independence is
superficial and sham. They have meekly allowed themselves to be manipulated and
serve the global hegemonic powers’ interests.
Oil alone is not the critical
consideration. The political factors, particularly the Israeli factor is also
very important. The energy factor, nonetheless, remains one of the major
catalysts. Whether it was Bush Senior’s war in early 1990s or the war of Bush
Junior following 9/11, the haste with which they invaded Iraq, which in their
strategists own words was an “indecent haste”, and for which they used the ploy
of the so-called weapons of mass destruction (WMD), a war that shifted the
focus from Afghanistan, it was definitely the energy dimension, which was the
major factor. Now, the so-called exit strategy is also moving along with future
arrangements for energy control. The recent auctions that have taken place in
Iraq, or are in progress, are part of the same game. Energy has become not only
an economic but a major political issue. Unless a political strategy is
developed, the Middle East and Central Asia would not be able to get the right price
for its assets.
As far as the expected role of OPEC is
concerned, probably the OPEC countries have lost their teeth. OPEC was a power
in 1980s. Its share in world oil began to shrink as new non Arab/non Muslim
players in the form of countries from Latin America, Africa, particularly
Nigeria, came in. They lacked a focused strategy for sustainable development.
In the Middle East, a barrel under the earth is more valuable than a barrel in
the pipeline. But the leadership there has failed to realize this crucial
truth. They were coaxed and forced to produce as much as the global
politico-economic barons desired.
One would have to admit, however, that the
West has developed its strategies with a deeper understanding of both economic
and political dynamics. For example, America has diversified its import of oil
and thus its dependence on Middle East is reduced now to as low as 20 percent,
which was 60 percent at one time. The US used to have energy reserves for 15
days, then 30 days, and later increased it to 3 months. Now it is said to be
more than 120 days/ 4 months. So it means that even if a country tries to use
its leverage, it would not work, because of the safety mechanisms they have
developed. By increasing the supplies,
the countries of the Middle East have not only been providing for the West’s
day to day requirements but also for building their reserves. This weakened the
role of OPEC and its muscle. Then there is division within OPEC countries
themselves on production and there have been instances where a few countries
agreed for production cuts while one big player decided otherwise. That is how
the game was played and now OPEC is no longer the decisive player.
It is interesting to note how the Muslim
world has lost its leverage since 1973. Kissinger, who was Secretary of State
and Security Advisor to President Nixon, became a pivotal figure in developing
an outstanding strategy called recycling. The Kissinger phenomenon reflected
the Western mindset that made the West believe that it was paying the Muslim
World, especially the Middle East, a high price by giving them dollars in lieu
of oil, and if it could get these dollars back, the West would be the sole
beneficiary. This was called as recycling. The once advantageous position of
the Muslim World was thus reversed and it gave way to a new dependence because
instead of using their immense energy resources for developing their own
production base, the Arabs and the Muslim World virtually handed them over to
America and West. The money thus generated was used by the West for
investments, speculation in the form of hedge funds and investment houses – all
managed and controlled by the West. That is how the Arabs and Islamic world
lost their leverage.
Muslim countries in general and Arab world
in particular failed to realize that this big inflow of money could be utilized
for building their own capacity instead of developing a life style which is
consumption-oriented, wasteful and not sustainable except if one remains
dependent on the West and keeps fulfilling their demands. The oil money became
an addiction. Instead of managing it for economic sectors and managing it in
view of their immediate needs for future prospects, they became prone to a
falsely inflated lifestyle, and that was a wrong and disastrous strategy.
Importantly, the use of oil as a weapon
depends upon a visionary and courageous leadership – a leadership that is
concerned more about the people’s interests instead of selfish personal
interests. This is really unfortunate that the post-King Faisal Arab world has
failed to have a leader of the same vision and courage. Qaddafi initially
resisted, but then surrendered in front of the US pressures, a capitulation
that can be called a great tragedy for the Arab world. As things stand today, the
entire Middle East leadership has been reduced to the status of tools in the
hands of the West and as its proxies. Proxies do not use weapons, as their role
is only to clap and capitulate. It is due to this that the Muslim World has
moved from the strategy of dignified self-reliance to a destructive syndrome of
dependence and serving the interests of the West. Unless there is a fundamental
political change, the Arab and Muslim World populace would not be able to use
their leverage, whether it is political or energy-based.
Clash of
Civilizations
While there is no fundamental or permanent
clash of interests between the peoples of the Western countries and the Muslim
World, it is the ruling elite of the West that is calling the shots in their
own vested interests. Even in the US today, more than 14 percent people live
below poverty line. California, which is the largest and richest state of
America and 7th largest economies in the world, has more than 30 percent
poverty. Almost 25 percent of the population does not have health cover. If
there is a clash of interests, it is solely due to the leadership and elite
both of the Muslim world and the West
There is also a historical psychic fear of
Islam or Islamophobia. The shadow of the Crusades has changed its color and
intensity but remains very much there. This is very clear from the two major
developments of recent past: first, the Islamic Revolution of Iran in 1979; and
the second, the Islamic resistance to the Soviet invasion in Afghanistan. There
was convergence of interests for some time in Afghanistan but it was temporary
and very superficial. While the US was supporting the Afghan Jihad, it was also
strategically planning for realignment. An important article of Nixon in
1983/84 (published in Foreign Affairs), when the Afghan war was approaching its
climax, floated the idea that Russia and America had more in common than the
points of divergence.
The clash of civilization thesis first
appeared in early 1970s. Bernard Lewis was the first to write about it and it
was later developed by Huntington. Moreover, when the Russians withdrew from
Afghanistan, the NATO Secretary General publically said that while the red
threat has gone, the green threat had emerged. So it is not 9/11; it goes far back. From that
viewpoint it can be said that it is the elite both of the Muslim World and the
West that have played their own games in their own narrow selfish interests.
The Arabs and the Muslim population remain at the receiving end. It is this
cultural and ideological onslaught and political hegemonism of the US and the
West that has bred the cancer of extremism and violence in the Muslim World.
Love breeds love and hatred begets hatred. The so-called terrorism in parts of
the Muslim World is nothing but a reaction to the terror and the ‘war on
terror’ let loose by the US, its allies and ill-begotten Israel against the
Muslims
US Interest
in Middle East
The ‘American interests’ in the Middle East are not
really ‘national’ interests. The interests of the small number of energy
companies, Wall Street banks, the political establishment, and their well paid
lobbyists are not the same as the interests of working class people of all
racial, ethnic, and religious backgrounds who make up the majority of the
population of the United States. Indeed, since all countries throughout the
world consist, more or less, of an upper class that possesses most of the
wealth and political power and a lower class that has neither—there is no
‘national interest’ in any country. The ruling groups portray their special
interests as the ‘national’ interest.
The ruling elites in the United States have
clear interests in the Middle East that they have consistently pursued for
nearly a century. Those interests can best be summed up as ‘imperialist’ interests
that have always centered on the pursuit of geo-strategic advantages in control
of the region’s energy resources—oil and natural gas, the pipelines and sea
lanes that connect them to global markets. After World War II, the United
States superseded the British as the dominant imperial power in the Middle
East. Its interests consisted of three interrelated objectives: (1) To control
the oil and gas resources of the region; (2) To control certain regimes in the
region as much as possible, especially Israel, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Egypt,
and Pakistan; and (3) To prevent the rise of any popular movements—whether
communist, socialist, nationalist, or religious—that might threaten US control
of the region’s energy resources and the stability of its client regimes.
Once it is recognized that the rhetoric is
meant to deceive the general public, it would not be difficult to recognize the
intense competition among capitalist interests for resources, cheap labor,
markets, and geo-strategic advantage that, during the first half of the
twentieth century, produced two horrific world wars. The US is trying to
prevent its ongoing decline, while new powers, especially China, are
challenging the US Empire. During the past several years, Brazilian journalist
Pepe Escobar, who writes regularly for ‘Asia Times Online’, has published
highly informative articles and books on the global battles over what he has
dubbed “Pipelineistan.” With a wry and cynical sense of humor and a great
deal of knowledge, his “Roving Eye” has described the competition for dominance
over the Middle East and Central Asia. Among the major powers, there are no
“good guys” in this competition. They fight for their own material interests,
and they do not hesitate to threaten the lives of millions of people.
Beginning in 1979, the US, along with
Saudi, Pakistani, and other allies, organized an international private army to
invade and devastate Afghanistan, a strategic objective in the new “Great Game”
for control of the energy resources, and potential and actual pipeline routes
in Central and South Asia. More than two decades later, the 9/11 terrorist
attacks on the US were blowback from the US strategy of encouraging and
unleashing the most extreme form of political Islam against a Soviet backed progressive
government in Afghanistan.
The US, which possesses a military arsenal
larger than that of all other nations combined, and which spends more on
weaponry and sells more arms than all other nations combined, is the single
largest practitioner and sponsor of terror in the world. It cannot possibly
wage a war on terror, unless it makes war on itself. That is not to deny or
minimize the existence of both non-state and state sponsored terrorism not
controlled by the US and sometimes directed against the United States. Terror
has long been a weapon employed by contending imperialists, primarily against
colonized, occupied, and subjugated people, but also against each other.
The end of the Cold War period brought with
it the end of the challenges to US imperial interests from the Soviet bloc and
its sponsored communist and nationalist movements in the Middle East. Secular
leftist forces throughout the Middle East declined in strength and influence.
This provided a brief window of opportunity for the US to launch the first Gulf
War against Iraq without any Soviet opposition. Soon, however, new forces rose
to challenge US hegemony in the Middle East. As the US sought to expand its
military presence in the region, in order to bring oil resources and
governments more securely under US control, States in the European Union,
Russia, and China increasingly saw a world dominated by a lone superpower as
contrary to their own interests and challenged US policies in the region. For
example, Chinese and Russian support enabled Iran to pursue a path that
challenged US interests, and Iran supported groups such as Hezbollah in Lebanon
and Hamas in Palestine that resisted the US backed Israel government and its
allies in Lebanon.
US, Middle
East and Media
All of the corporate media in the United
States serve government policies faithfully, working constantly to keep most
people in the United States from acquiring accurate information and
understanding of what their government is doing in the Middle East and
throughout the world. Although major media confessed belatedly, for example, to
helping George Bush to lie, the US into the 2003 invasion of Iraq, these same
media continue to provide the same services to the US government. They are part
of the corporate establishment themselves, and they will not change. They have
continued, for example, to promote support in the US for Israel’s criminal
blockade of Gaza, and current US assistance to Egypt to build a steel wall on
the border between Egypt and Gaza. They never allow any information about the
energy objectives that are driving the US war in Afghanistan to get into their
coverage of the war.
Since the terrible earthquake in Haiti, the
media have hidden from the public knowledge of a century of US imperialist
domination and exploitation. They do not mention the more recent economic
restructuring plans and the two coup d’etats against Haiti’s elected leader.
They do not remind the people that the US intercepted thousands of Haitian
immigrants and detained them in prisons at Guantanamo during the years before
9/11. They false portray Haitians as violent to justify US prioritizing
military security over lifesaving aid. This shows what the US does in the
Middle East; it also does to the people of small island nations right on its
doorstep.
Obama and
Middle East
President Obama had clearly and decisively
supported longstanding US policies regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict. He
denounced the UN Goldstone Report that irrefutably documented Israeli war
crimes against Palestinians in Gaza. He haf continued massive US military
assistance to Israel, and has continued the effort to split Palestinians by
arming sections of Fatah that collaborate with Israel. This effort, of course,
has the not so secret support and participation of the governments of Egypt,
Jordan, and Saudi Arabia. The most likely course of events is that of
continuing Israeli settlement expansion in the West Bank and Jerusalem, along
with continued terrible suffering of people in Gaza under the blockade. For the
US, maintaining Israel’s status as a powerful watchdog in the region that
cannot be seriously threatened by any other forces in the region makes Iran’s
support for Hezbollah and Hamas a serious problem. That is why the US and
Israel continue to threaten a military assault on Iran. Maintaining Israel’s
exclusive ownership of nuclear weapons in the region is an important aspect of
this equation.
The only “breakthrough” that President
Obama could conceivably achieve would be the acceptance by compliant
Palestinian leaders of a Palestinian Bantustan, lacking any real sovereignty or
independence, but able somehow to contain and suppress Palestinian anger
against such a betrayal. In other words, the US and Israel would like to
establish an apartheid arrangement between Israel and a Palestinian Bantustan.
It seems unlikely that this can be forced upon Palestinians and the hundreds of
millions of people throughout the world who care about the fate of Palestine
and want a just peace between Israelis and Palestinians.
Much has been written about the Israel
Lobby in the United States. To be sure, lobbyists exert much influence on the
US government. On a more fundamental level, however, the US government exists
to serve elite interests. The pursuit of empire has been a consistent US
strategy for well over a century. Regardless of which party is in the majority
and which particular lobby is currently more influential, there is no division
within US ruling groups about the maintenance and defense of its empire.
Palestinian American Joseph Massad, well
known professor of Arab Politics at Columbia University in New York City, made
this point most persuasively in a 2006 article ‘Blaming the Israeli lobby: It’s
US Policy that Inflames the Arab World’. US policy in the Middle East is not significantly
different than it is throughout the rest of the world, nor is it different from
US policies decades before the growth of Zionism and the founding of the state
of Israel. Lobbyists may battle over strategies and tactics, but there is no
anti-imperialist faction with any clout in the ruling elites of the United
States.
US President Obama possesses a different
style and rhetoric from his predecessor, but he has rapidly demonstrated to
those willing to open their eyes and see that he is a loyal steward of the US
Empire. His surge in Afghanistan, drone attacks in Pakistan, retention of US
forces in Iraq, bombing attacks in Yemen, continued operations in Somalia, and
continued militarization throughout sub-Saharan Africa under the aegis of the
Pentagon’s new military command for Africa, Africom, explain that the thrust of
US foreign policy is not about to change for the better. Along with that,
President Obama, despite populist rhetoric, has demonstrated his consistent
defense of Wall Street banks, insurance companies, and other big financial and
corporate interests. The Democratic Party received more money from the richest
segments of American society than the Republicans did in the 2008 election. No
one should have any expectation that the Democratic Party will alter the
direction of US foreign and domestic politics. That can only come about when a
mass movement, independent of the two-party establishment, develops to
challenge the ruling groups in American society.
Trump has embarked of]n a far more serious
and disturbing plan to what is called a
Zero Palestine Solution. A solution in which the two Palestinian entities are
to absorbed by Jordan and Israel. In the process the intent is to eliminate the Palestinians as a people. The
growing relations of the Saudis and GCC with Israel are also a part of this
effort. Already Trump has recognized Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel and he
is moving towards presenting the solution which will completely eliminate the Palestinians
as a people as a nation as an entity.
A. The ‘American interests’ in the Middle
East are not really ‘national’ interests. The interests of the small
number of energy companies, Wall Street banks, the political establishment, and
their well paid lobbyists are not the same as the interests of working class
people of all racial, ethnic, and religious backgrounds who make up the
majority of the population of the United States. Indeed, since all countries
throughout the world consist, more or less, of an upper class that possesses
most of the wealth and political power and a lower class that has neither—there
is no ‘national interest’ in any country. The ruling groups portray their
special interests as the ‘national’ interest.
The ruling elites in the United States have
clear interests in the Middle East that they have consistently pursued for
nearly a century. Those interests can best be summed up as ‘imperialist’
interests that have always centered on the pursuit of geo-strategic advantages
in control of the region’s energy resources—oil and natural gas, the pipelines
and sea lanes that connect them to global markets. After World War II, the
United States superseded the British as the dominant imperial power in the
Middle East. Its interests consisted of three interrelated objectives: (1)
To control the oil and gas resources of the region; (2) To control certain
regimes in the region as much as possible, especially Israel, Saudi Arabia,
Iraq, Iran, Egypt, and Pakistan; and (3) To prevent the rise of any popular
movements—whether communist, socialist, nationalist, or religious—that might
threaten US control of the region’s energy resources and the stability of its
client regimes.
Once it is recognized that the rhetoric is
meant to deceive the general public, it would not be difficult to recognize the
intense competition among capitalist interests for resources, cheap labor,
markets, and geo-strategic advantage that, during the first half of the
twentieth century, produced two horrific world wars. The US is trying to
prevent its ongoing decline, while new powers, especially China, are
challenging the US Empire. During the past several years, Brazilian
journalist Pepe Escobar, who writes regularly for ‘Asia Times Online’, has
published highly informative articles and books on the global battles over what
he has dubbed “Pipelineistan.” With a wry and cynical sense of humor and
a great deal of knowledge, his “Roving Eye” has described the competition for
dominance over the Middle East and Central Asia. Among the major powers,
there are no “good guys” in this competition. They fight for their own
material interests, and they do not hesitate to threaten the lives of millions
of people.
Palestinians
Hamas and Fatah today represent two
different approaches to solve the problem of Palestine. Fatah, at least after
the signing of the Oslo accords, has accepted the two major pre-conditions
dictated by Israel and the United States to begin the so-called peace process:
recognition of Israel as a legitimate state; and renunciation of violence.
Since then the Palestinian Authority under Fatah has effectively acted as a
Deputy Sheriff for Israel in the occupied territories by maintaining law and
order in the West Bank on behalf of the occupier and preventing attacks inside
Israel. This has helped Israelis to redeploy their forces from West Bank to
Gaza to crush the resistance by the Islamic groups such as Hamas. Fatah is also
closely connected with the US and its European and Arab allies who are deeply
concerned about the rise of Islamic forces in the region.
Hamas, on the other hand, remains committed
to its original charter that rejects the legitimacy of the state of Israel as a
national home for the Jews only. It considers armed struggle for national
liberation as a natural right (and Islamic obligation) of occupied people that
has also been recognized by the UN Charter. Hamas wants to restore the
sovereignty of the Palestinian people over all of historic Palestine with the
right of the Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties
appropriated illegally by the Jewish settlers since the establishment of
Israel. Hamas does not reject out rightly the idea of negotiated settlement of
the Palestinian issue; however, given the history of Israeli intransigence in
all previous peace talks, Hamas is not willing to lend Israel the credibility
of a peace partner as it continues to build more illegal settlements in the
occupied territories and kill Palestinians at will. At the same time, however,
Hamas leadership has publically indicated that it is willing to sign a long
term Hudna (truce) with Israel if it agrees to completely withdraw from the
areas it seized in the 1967 war. This position was clearly stated by the late
spiritual leader of Hamas Sheikh Ahmad Yasin. The political leadership of Hamas
based in Damascus has also reiterated this position on several occasions in recent
months.
While there are fundamental differences
between Fatah and Hamas on how to go about restoring the political rights of
Palestinians, one should not overlook the fact that Hamas has never opposed any
meaningful peace talks between the Palestinian Authority and Israel. On the
contrary, Hamas gave full moral and political support to President Yasser
Arafat during his crucial peace talks with Israel mediated by President Clinton
during 1990s. Hamas has made it clear that it will not get in the way of any
negotiated settlement reached between the Palestinian Authority and Israel as
long as the peace accord brings about an independent, truly sovereign and
viable Palestinian state, seeks complete Israeli withdrawal from the occupied
territories, acknowledges East Jerusalem as the capital of Palestinian state,
and recognizes the right of return of Palestinian refugees. Thus, the internal
divisions within the Palestinian ranks will adversely affect the so-called
peace process only in case the Fatah leadership capitulates to an accord that
goes against the consensus of the Palestinian people. Seen from this
perspective, one cannot say that the differences between Fatah and Hamas are
irreconcilable as for as the peace talks with Israel are concerned.
At the same time, however, one cannot deny
the fact that the Fatah-Hamas conflict has not only provided a convenient alibi
to Israel for the indefinite suspension of peace talks but has also tended to
demoralize the Palestinians people and their well wishers.
Human Rights
in Palestine
Judge Goldstone’s report, howsoever
inadequate and cautious in its approach, was, nevertheless, the first ever
document by an international organization to raise the possibility of indicting
Israel for committing war crimes and crimes against humanity. Unfortunately,
however, moral and legal considerations are rarely taken into account when it
comes to the imperatives of power politics in international arena. And given
the history of the US-Israeli relations as well as the inordinate influence of
the Israeli lobby in Washington, it was simply inconceivable that the United
States would have allowed this report even to have been discussed in the United
Nations forums, what to speak of adopting and implementing it.
For all practical purposes, the US policy
toward the Arab-Israeli conflict is a direct extension of the American domestic
politics. It is interesting to note that an overwhelming majority of US
congressmen signed a petition to oppose the Goldstone Report without even
reading it. It was enough for them to sign the petition after receiving
instructions from the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the
pro-Israel lobbying group in Washington. It was, therefore, a foregone
conclusion that that Washington would not allow any discussion of the Report.
What was more disgraceful in this whole Goldstone affair was the fact that the
US used its Arab-Muslim allies (including the spineless Palestinian President
Mahmud Abbas) to withhold any discussion of the Report.
President Obama said in his Cairo speech
that the Arabs and Muslims will judge him by his actions, and not by his words.
His words in Cairo evoked a great deal of hope among Muslims all over the world;
his actions (and inactions) have been nothing but greatly disappointing. He
left unfulfilled a large part of his agenda which included Palestine and
Kashmir
Neocons
The neocons presented three agendas that
provided George W Bush with grounds to launch the attack against Saddam
Hussein:
I. The United
States will remake Iraq into a democratic country which will have a spillover
or snow balling effect for the rest of the Middle East. This way America will
be able to spread the light of democracy to the entire Middle East. The goal
was not fundamentally flawed, but seeing the aftermath of invasion of Iraq, it
will never be achieved and that explains why the Americans even under Obama
administration are not talking about Iraq as a springboard to implement
democratization project. Even if the larger goal of using Iraq as a center
piece of the project in the Middle East has not been realized, the goal of the
regime change has taken place. Now, the United States has a friendly
democratically elected regime in power which would not likely threaten the key
American interests in the region. The Maliki regime actually provided the US a
substantial ingress and allowed it to maintain its influence and an indirect
presence in Iraq that will probably continue in the foreseeable future.
II. The second goal was to eliminate Iraqi capabilities
for developing Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs). We now know that Iraq never
had these capabilities and the threat of these weapons was used as pretext to
invade Iraq. The former British Prime Minister Tony Blair has recently stated
that even if Iraq had not possessed the WMDs, he would have still gone and invaded Iraq, because he
felt that Saddam’s autocratic rule was a sound enough moral reason for the
Western powers to use force and seek a regime change there.
III. The third goal that many people think is the real
underlying reason for the US invasion of Iraq and its continued military
presence in that country is the Iraqi oil resources. The US, no doubt, is
interested in the Iraqi oil. This goal has been achieved partially as a
consequence of a 2007 deal under which it was agreed that the American oil
companies will be given a preferential treatment in the exploitation of the
Iraqi oil assets.
Regardless of whether the war was launched
for democratization, rooting out WMDs or the control of Iraqi oil and energy
resources, there is no denying the fundamental reality that the cost of war for
the US has been exceedingly high. According to some estimates, it has cost the
US over three trillion dollars. Many in the American policy community believe
that given its stupendous financial cost this war was not worth fighting. So,
irrespective of the original US goals in Iraq, the push for the American
policymakers to withdraw from Iraq will remain very strong. Trump has now
declared withdrawal from Syria and Afghanistan
Firstly, the critical driving factor behind
the withdrawal process is the realization in the United States that it was a
wrong war that has deeply polarized the American nation. The United States has
shed the blood of not only thousands of Iraqi civilians but has also paid a
huge price in terms of its own treasure and blood. So, Obama seems committed to
putting an end to this war.
Secondly, the economic cost of this war has
been beyond American expectations. Earlier, the calculation of US policymakers
was that some of the cost of the war would be met through the sale of Iraqi oil
and this would make the war affordable for Washington. This expectation has not
been realized, largely because the price of oil having soared to about $180 per
barrel has now come down to about 77 dollars per barrel. The dwindling oil
revenues have forced the US oil companies to extract oil in larger quantities.
This has complicated the picture even more as the Iraqi government also needs
income from the same oil revenues to stabilize itself and also to undertake the
daunting task of the economic reconstruction of the country.
Thirdly, there is the imperative of winning
the war in Afghanistan. President Obama has announced that the US will commit
thirty thousand troops more troops in Afghanistan as part of the surge strategy
to help stabilize the situation in Afghanistan. Some of these troops will be
withdrawn from Iraq to be sent over to Afghanistan. Keeping that aspect in
consideration, the withdrawal of American forces in Iraq is critically linked
to the surge in Afghanistan.
Iran
The US policymakers are conscious of the
fact that the ethnic and sectarian division in Iraq will destabilize the
country and they would not want to take any measures that would further
exacerbate the tensions and could ultimately result in destabilizing the
relationship between the Shiite majority and Sunni minority. Consequently, they
have come to accept the reality that Iran’s influence over the Shiite population
in Iraq will remain strong and they have not tried to reverse this influence.
At this stage, Tehran has played its card wisely and used its influence in Iraq
to become an important stakeholder. This is exactly what Iran has done and is
now an important player in the Middle East, this expanding Iranian influence
has resulted in a Saudi GCC emergence as rival powders .
In addition, Iran may not be interested in
capturing any territory of Iraq because it thinks; A) that will not be
tolerated by its neighbors; B) this will be seen as blatant use of force by
Iran and C) it will not be acceptable to most of the Iraqi people, even to the
Shiite population which has an ideological affinity and sympathy for Iran. So
far, Iranian influence has helped stabilize the situation in Iraq and Iran does
not want to run the risk of having Iraq become a new battleground for regional
powers like Saudi Arabia.
However, the biggest worry for America
regarding Iran could be to devise a strategy to balance the present rising Iranian
influence in the region and to prevent the probable strategic rapprochement
between Baghdad and Tehran. . The US had pursued the policy of dual containment
of Iran and Iraq for very long time. Since it has been able to contain Iraq
through war and through installing a pro-American regime, the containment
policy for Iran remains intact. In this context, if Iran forged a strategic
alliance or an understanding with Iraq, either for political or economic
reasons; the US and Saudi Arabia would not view this development with
equanimity. However, because of its internal weaknesses and problems, Iraq,
both as a State and as a regional power, is not in a position to pose any kind
of threat to the region. In case of Iran, it may like to carve out a special sphere
of influence in Iraq for regional influence commensurate with its growing
military and missile capabilities.
But the worst American fear is a situation
in which social, ethnic and religious polarization in Iraq becomes so intense
that they threaten the cohesion of the Iraqi state and government. Such a
situation would be a bigger gain for Iran than that of a united Iraq in which
Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis live in harmony. In this scenario, the US
administration would like to see an Iraqi regime which is quite capable of
handling these contradictions and Iraqi constitution on its own, particularly
after the withdrawal of American ground troops. Some legal measures have been
taken to ensure that post-US withdrawal Iraq will be able to stand on its own
feet. So, there is no threat to the cohesion of the Iraqi state as long as the
central government remains powerful.
The anti American sentiments at the public
level are very strong and likely to remain so for a long time to come because
of the massive abuses of human rights, killings, and destruction that the
American invasion of the country brought with it. The story of American
military actions against Iraqi people has not unfolded in all its terrible
dimensions yet. The Iraqi people, who have suffered the atrocities at the hands
of American soldiers, know very well what the invasion meant for them,
resulting in making them intensely anti-American. In this backdrop, any future
government in Iraq will have to take this undercurrent of deep anti-American
resentment into account and craft its policy accordingly. No genuinely elected
Iraqi government will be able to survive for too long if it is perceived as an
extension of American interests. The US might be able to extract certain
concessions from Iraq in terms of oil and privileged l access to its energy
resources, but it would be very hard for it to find a regime in Iraq that would
hold the US in a tight embrace against the will of the Iraqi people.
However, it is a widely known fact that the
US leaders talk about spreading and supporting democracy but if democracy in a
certain country produces leaders who are not willing to toe their line, they
turn their back on such a democratic dispensation. Therefore, the US wants a
democracy that produces leaders that are acceptable to the United States. This
is an inherent problem in American attitude in international politics,
particularly in the third world countries. Since the democratically elected
leaders have their own agendas, compulsions and popular mandate, the US prefers
lending its support to dictators.
In the case of Iraq, Saddam Hussein fell
afoul of these American gimmicks since the occurrence of Iranian revolution in
1979 till 1991. During these eleven years, the US was the biggest supporter of
Saddam Hussein as is evident from some very important visits of Rumsfeld to
Saddam Hussein who was projected as a force for regional stability. It also
carried along Saudi Arabia and Kuwait in funding the Iraqi war against Iran
because Iran was seen as a bigger threat at that time. Therefore, the US has
never been shy of alternating support from dictatorship to democracy and vice
versa according to its own interests and political needs.
Considering such an American attitude of
supporting governments around the globe, the idea of a pro-American strong
leader ruling Iraq with the help of American support cannot be ruled out.
However, the US has created a new opening for the Iraqi people by destroying
the autocratic system and Ba’athist one-party rule in Iraq. If Iraq wants to
become a sovereign democracy, instead of a democracy which is seen to be
subservient to the American strategic interests, the Iraqi leaders in
particular and people in general will have to pursue their own democratic
agenda.
The American trained military force may
pursue the American agenda. The Iraqi leadership, particularly the military
leaders, is beholden to the US because it trained them, gave them weapons,
provided them with military equipments and put them into power. ‘Without
mentioning his name, I met an Iraqi general during my last visit to Washington.
While talking to him, I realized that he was more loyal to the American leaders
than the ordinary Americans. That made me wonder how this general was going to
rule that country with that kind of blatant pro-American stance. So if that is
the tip of the iceberg then in terms of future leadership, Iraq does have a
potential problem.’ The military will be seen as a pro-American institution
with an extraordinary degree of US influence over it and the possibility of a
repression of genuine anti-American democracy in Iraq at the hands of an
American-trained Iraqi military force cannot be ruled out.
Power
Structure in Middle East
One should not forget that even after the
complete withdrawal of US forces from Iraq, it will not be a situation of total
vacuum. The Iraqi government is in place and a lot will depend on who it
chooses to align itself with. For example, no Iraqi government can afford to
alienate its neighbors such as Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, and Turkey
etc. The US efforts will be to use some of these regional powers to maintain a
degree of influence over Iraq. Although these countries have their own agendas,
yet it can manipulate its influence in Jordan and Saudi Arabia for that matter.
Besides, Iraq is not weak enough that it will actually become the battleground
for all the regional powers, the way in which Afghanistan did after the
withdrawal of the Soviet forces. Iraq is a proud nation and it has the
resources, resilience and a nascent, strengthened, and enhanced sense of Iraqi
nationalism—the biggest asset they have. It is going to be a critical
deterrence against any country’s ambition to influence Baghdad in a decisive
fashion. Therefore, there might not be an intensifying regional competition
replacing the American military presence in Iraq.
Moreover, China has made ingress in Iraq
because of the oil factor. Russia also has a long standing interest in Iraq. It
had a 20-year friendship treaty with Saddam Hussein. With the exception of
years 1990 and 2003, the Russian technicians were present in Iraq. But Russia
has lost that influence and it will try to regain its toehold in Iraq. One can
see how Russia and China are trying to develop a very special relationship with
Iraq. These ties, however, will have to be motivated and propelled purely by
logic and economic considerations rather than any kind of geo-political concern
or they will have to contend with American presence and influence in Iraq which
is going to remain very strong for a long time to come either through the
political dispensation that the US has put in place; or through the U.S trained
Iraqi military; or through their indirect presence.
Theoretically one cannot rule out the
possibility of an anti-American coup in Iraq. But this is highly unlikely given
the fact that most of the Iraqi leaders are indebted to the Americans. The
Iraqi sense of nationalism is very strong but it will not easily fuse with a
pro-American strategic posture for too long. In view of these contradictory
pulls, it is going to be very delicate balancing act for the Iraqi regime.
For United States of America: The US needs
to withdraw its forces from Iraq, and if it has to, it should keep them to a
bare minimum and let the Iraqi people determine their own future. Besides,
Iraq’s capability and capacity to devise a future for themselves should not be
underestimated. Iraq is a literate, very sophisticated, and one of the most
advanced societies in terms of literature and heritage. It is one of the oldest
civilizations and it should not be considered a banana republic. So, if Iraq is
left to its own devices, the Iraqi people are quite capable of fashioning their
own future which would be democratic in essence; largely because they were
ruled by dictators for a long time and those dictators launched attacks against
the neighboring states and caused devastation. Having seen the devastating
effects of dictatorial rule for themselves, the Iraqi people would do their
best to avoid being ruled by a dictator like Saddam Hussain in the near future.
In addition, the civil society,
particularly its media, is now very strong and the people have tasted
democracy. They have seen the value of an open society. These are some of the
positives that should be strengthened and reinforced. At this point, the US
should realize its responsibility for waging war and causing such large scale
destruction and should come forward to play a constructive role that it owes to
the Iraqi people. The Iraqis would need the Western expertise and technology,
and the international support to negotiate the democratic transition. So, the
West in particular and the international community in general should not walk
away from the Iraqi people in this very challenging situation. In the regional
matrix, Iraq is not a kind of country that can be over-influenced or
overpowered by any of the regional states. Nonetheless, the possibility of Iraq
moving a little closer to Iran than it traditionally has been cannot be ruled
out. In short, the US should give up its high handed approach towards Iraq,
adopt a “hands-off policy,” treat the Iraqi people with respect and grant them
the freedom to manage their own affairs.
For Iraqi Government: The Iraqi government
has a massive internal construction and peace building task at hand that
requires a single minded focus on dealing with these issues. It also needs to
deal with the pockets of insurgency, the threats of terrorism, and lawlessness.
There are a number of organized and violent armed groups that have popped up in
Iraq, so dealing with these groups, putting them out of business, launching a deweaponization
campaign, and inculcating in people the value of seeking a non-violent
resolution of their problems are some of the very important priority areas. The
Iraqis need to turn inwards and that is where their salvation lies. The economy
needs to be put back on track as it was before the invasion—stable and
resilient. The government still possesses the economic and natural resources to
strengthen the country and to engage in the economic reconstruction. The
important thing is to develop a political consensus, take the people on board,
focus on the immediate needs of the people, and stay engaged with the
international community.
Iraq should go back to its policy of
non-alignment as it was under Saddam Hussain and send a message of reassurance
to its neighbors that if Iraq regains its strength, it will not pose any kind
of danger to them. It needs to negotiate a settlement with Iran over Shatt
al-‘Arab and to resolve the territorial disputes peacefully with its smaller
neighbors. It also needs to join the larger Islamic community and find its
place of pride there because a non-aligned Iraq would be seen as a positive
force by most of its neighbors. However, if Iraq is aligned with the United
States and seen as the “American cat’s paw” vis-à-vis other neighbors, it will
not be beneficial for Iraq. Siding with the US may revive its tension with
Iran. So, Iraq has to be very careful in how it handles its relationship with
the United States. In no circumstances should it let the US use its territory
to launch attacks against any of its neighbors. At the same time, Iraq should
not become part of the revisionist states vis-à-vis Israel. Since technically
Iraq still remains at war with Israel, its relationship with Israel is going to
be very sensitive.
Obama Rhetoric
During the election campaign, President
Obama talked a great deal about the situation in Afghanistan, Pak-India
relations, US-Iran relations and the Middle East problems in general. There
were high expectations that his presidency would mark a distinct change in the
American policies toward the problems and issues that the world was facing. Obama
talked about opening all inclusive negotiations with Iran that also include the
nuclear issue. Nevertheless, he was careful even at that time on nuclear issue,
trying not to give the impression that he would accept a military nuclear
program from Iran.
. The
Obama administration continued to hold a hard-line stance on the nuclear issue
and is threatening Iran with more sanctions—harder and tougher. Yet, during his
presidency He managed to arrive at a nuclear disarmament treaty with Iran,
which has now been scrapped by the Trump administration
Similarly Iran has a role in Iraq as well.
It has handled the Iraq crisis extremely well in its national interest. Since
Iran was a victim of Saddam Hussein’s aggression for eight long years, the
power shifting in Iraq from Saddam Hussein’s Ba’ath party to the elected
government of the majority which, Iranians believe, subscribes to the Shiite
school of thought, is a boon for Iran. It has used its cultural and religious
linkages to establish a great deal of understanding with some of the armed
militias inside Iraq. Leveraging these linkages well in the region has made
Iran a power to reckon with and it would be difficult to side step or ignore
Iran in regional issues. Obama is also aware of these factors and knows that
Iran’s approach to these issues would be one of the determining factors for any
future peace talks or any progress that can be made in the Middle East or Gulf.
The Obama outlook was that the whole issue
of US-Iran relations is passing through a very interesting phase where the
United States is very increasingly realizing and admitting that: Iran is a
reality and an emerging power; it has enough clout to exert influence all
around today; and it is bound to have more clout in the years to come. Both
sides are in a kind of exploratory phase at the moment. One of Obama’s problems
is that the hawks of Israel do not take an enlightened view and would want to
bomb Iran’s nuclear installations. President Obama has resisted the pressure
from this particular hawkish lobby and generally counseled Israel to show
restraint, because it would be a disaster if there is any military action
against Iran either by Israel or by United States. He realizes that it would
complicate things to such an extent that it would become extremely difficult to
resolve the consequences of that unwise and extremely shortsighted decision.
At the same time, Unites States continues
to oppose the Iranian nuclear program. When the elections took place in Iran
and the protests ensued, the American media in particular which is fed by the
American government very often and the American intelligence agencies took a
strong anti-Ahmadinejad line. They played these protests up and tried to stage
a kind of velvet revolution in Iran, as is seen by Iranian establishment. It
was a negative move on the part of the West which Iranians did not take very
well.
The West tried to use statements from
Tehran for developing a case against its revolutionary regime. One of the
charges against Iran over the decades has been that Iran is a supporter of all
terrorist movements in the greater Middle East. Iran seems to be providing
active assistance, arms, training, and volunteers to Hezbollah and Hamas that
have been classified by the West as terrorist movements. In this backdrop, Iran
has always been portrayed as a terrorist state by the West. When Iran tries to
reach out to Latin America for its own economic reasons, particularly to defeat
the sanctions; even that was seen as an attempt to create trouble in American
backyard.
Nevertheless, the contacts continued and
both sides were trying to identify a common space where their interests could
co-exist, if not converge as it is unlikely, and the present confrontation,
which is now about 27 years old, can be dismantled. In the dialogue between
Iran and the West, United States in particular, Iran seeks to change this
mind-set and want the West to acknowledge the fact that Iran cannot be a
secondary power. Half of the struggle of Iran is for the West to acknowledge
Iran’s correct position in this part of the world.
Although a kind of dialogue has been going
on between Iran and the West but meaningful, result oriented and deep dialogue
is still not visible. The two sides have started from maximal positions. The US
demands that Iranians should completely wrap up its nuclear program which would
never be accepted by Iran. Some compromises would have to be found in such a
manner that Iran’s self esteem, its sense of dignity and interests are
safeguarded. Yet, the United States has not abandoned or given up the policy of
containing Iran. It has been its traditional policy and it is too early and
premature to assume that there has been any significant shift in that policy.
The shift has been in Obama’s own position very rightly.
It is extremely unlikely that Iran would be
seen to have climbed down under pressure from the West because it is a proud
nation and there is no reason and no objective factors on the ground as to why
Iran should buckle under pressure. It has resisted the pressure and defying it
has not brought it down. It is a fact that Iran could do better by developing
good relations with the West as it badly needs an injection of modern
technology and other basic things. But even while the sanctions and American
hostility with Iran have slowed down Iran’s development and progress over the
years, it has continued to march forward regardless of consequences of UN
Security Council resolutions against it.
Therefore, there is a point of view among
American hawks that sanctions have not really been successful. There are
serious doubts on the question whether the stricter sanctions against Iran
would work because Iran’s position is now unassailable. However, an
understanding between Iran and the West would be in the interest of both the
parties and the region.
China and
Russia and Iran sanctions
As far as China and Russia are concerned,
that is a complicating factor. Looking back to the history of various
resolutions directed against Iran, the United States almost always began with
very harsh draft for sanctions but behind the scene negotiations with China and
Russia and the fear of their veto gradually led to softening of the terms.
China and Russia individually and together are not in favor of any more
stringent sanctions against Iran because they know that these sanctions are
counterproductive. They also realize that sanctions would only strengthen the
hawks and hardliners in Tehran. Being the stakeholders in Iran’s prosperity,
China and Russia are also facing a problem. On the one hand, both the powers
have strong relations with Iran particularly in the economic field. China has
burgeoning trade with Iran which is bound to increase. Russia has supplied a
nuclear reactor and it would like to sell more of them to Iran if it can. Iran
has paid Russia for highly sophisticated air defense system but it has not
received it as yet. The Americans have been putting pressure on Russia to delay
it or cancel it altogether.
On the other hand, China has a fairly
comprehensive relationship with United States. When Obama recently visited
Beijing, he went out of the way to recognize China as an emerged power. At one
stage, he seemed to be suggesting that there are only two powers—US and China
that is G2 as it came to be known—that could sort out the global problems or
give a lead at the least. Similarly, Russia has sensitive relations with
America too because European politics is involved in it and NATO’s eastward
expansion is a cause of concern for Russia. Moreover, the Strategic Arms
Reduction Treaty (START) is running out of its time and a fresh treaty has to
be negotiated very soon. Thus, neither Russia nor the US can forget about each
other.
In this scenario, China and Russia try to
maintain relations with Washington in such a manner that the issue of Iran or
Iranian nuclear program would not rock their own bilateral relations too much.
They are careful, but it is a safe presumption that while they may say they
certainly would not want Iran to have nuclear weapons, they would continue to
oppose stringent or stricter sanctions against it. So in a way, they are in a
muddle. They certainly would not want to jeopardize their relations with Iran
and at the same time they also want to be seen by the United States and the
West as responsible international stakeholders and actors at global level. In
short, the two big powers would seek to continue the process of diluting the
American positions and they would probably succeed.
Sanctions
and Iran
Iran has responded to external pressures by
improvising and re-tooling up its indigenous capacity. In a way, the sanctions
have been a blessing for Iran as it has made considerable strides towards being
able to look after itself in the field of technology. Still it cannot be said
that Iran is self sufficient. Obviously, the technology that Iran is using
cannot be compared with the latest western technology, but Iranians have their
paragon: they have fairly modern army, which is not an aggressive army, and it
concentrates on defense, particularly on the coastal defense; and they have
demonstrated innovative skills.
While taking into consideration the
internal situation of Iran with respect to the sanctions, the reality is that Iran
would face the people’s pressure but it would not be a pressure to change
Iran’s national policy on the nuclear question. Incidentally, the nuclear
program is very popular in Iran. There could be many reasons for its popularity
such as self esteem, Israel, India and Pakistan being nuclear powers, the
threats to Iranian security and sovereignty etc. The pressure that government
is facing shows that the Iranian society is dynamic, and not at all static. The
revolution is now old and lots of people in Iran feel that the initial dangers
to the revolution are no longer there and there should be a better deal for the
Iranian people. The policies that the governments pursue or have pursued in
Iran in some ways create this demand for change or reforms. For instance, from
the beginning of Islamic revolution, the Iranian governments have encouraged
the education of women. Iranian women are into the higher education in a big
way. Probably, there are more women at universities than men and they are
encouraged to go in every profession. When the governments empower people in
that sense, they begin to wonder why it is necessary to continue with a rigid
dress code or other restrictions that the revolutionaries may have imposed on
them. Therefore, a certain momentum for change is built-up.
The same goes for other human rights
issues. Iran is a very literate society in which even those people who are by
no means rich or affluent buy books. So, when a society is so aware and lives
in a world of communication revolution too where it can listen to broadcast
from all over the world, then they begin to wonder why they do not have the
freedom of speech as anyone else in the world has. So it is a legitimate
struggle and this kind of struggle will continue. However, the conservatives in
Iran fear change. One reason for that fear is Iran’s own history in which they
look at the example of Shah of Iran. They have learned that if the change is
too rapid, the governments would lose control and unintended consequences may
emerge. This danger makes the governments even more conservative.
Nevertheless, there was a period of reforms
before Ahmadinejad and there was no upheaval. It was a gradual process. So Iran
has to find its own way. No one can do it from outside. The progress of Iranian
people in the direction of human rights such as better justice, better
distribution of wealth, and freedom of speech should be an internal struggle
and it seems that the direction would be positive. Today’s Iran is probably
less dogmatic than immediately after the revolution but they still have strong
convictions in the spirit of revolution. Therefore, when Iran is threatened in
a state of siege, then the dynamic are different: The Iranians would forget
their internal differences and unite because they have very strong sense of
nationhood. They defer the internal struggles and close their ranks as it
happened when Saddam Hussein invaded Iran. This is the characteristic of the
Iranian people which the West could not understand.
Quite the opposite, the West keeps on
providing funds for Iranian dissidents and setting up television stations to
arouse the Iranian people against their government on the matter of freedom of
speech, women’s rights and so on and so forth. But on the nuclear issue, there
is no significant group in Iran which wants to give up the nuclear program just
to oblige the West.
Yemen and
Saudis
Yemen has a long history of internal
divisions that mar the governance in the country. There are vacant spaces in
its border areas which can be exploited by the Al-Qaeda or other such elements,
but one of the dominant factors could be that Al-Qaeda wants to keep Saudi
Arabia under pressure because Saudi Arabia has been very determined in its
relationship with the US. However, what complicates things is that even the
West sometimes would like to see its own friends in the region to be kept under
pressure. They are always fearful that Saudi Arabia, Pakistan or any other
state might break away from the Western control and take their own independent
decision. Yemen is a hot-spot and Saudi government is right in the sense that
it cannot allow the phenomenon of armed groups in Yemen to get out of hand and
that is why they reacted strongly at this time. This problem can easily be
understood in terms of its own dynamics but the Western media is trying to
bring up the sectarian element into it.
Iran is careful in diplomacy and
international relations. For instance, when Iran exchanged a few statements
with Saudi Arabia, it tried to limit it to an exchange between the two
governments. The Saudis might have said something about Iranian suspected
involvement in the Yamani troubles and Iran then responded to it but they
appeared to be walking on a tight rope. Iran does not seem to be giving any
support to Al-Qaeda as a movement and once the chips are down, it would not
tolerate the Al-Qaeda fugitives in its own case either. In fact, in the case of
Afghanistan, Iran is opposed to the Taliban because it always regarded them as
an aberration of Sunni thought processes and extremely narrow-minded
interpretation of Islam, which is hostile to Iran’s own approach to Islam.
The American diplomacy continues to incite
Arab opinion against Iran and is constantly trying to prey on Arabs fears that
Iran might go nuclear. There is another constant theme in the western
propaganda for driving a wedge between Arabs and Iranians that Iran wants to be
hegemonic power of the Gulf or of the Middle East. There is Shiite minority in
Saudi Arabia which inhabits in the oil rich part of Saudi Arabia. The West
constantly drums that fact up and tries to create doubts that Saudi Arabian
stability particularly energy security would be threatened if there is a Shiite
revolt or Iranian penetration in the oil-bearing Eastern parts of Saudi Arabia.
This kind of threat is kept alive more by
the Western media than by the regional media as a part of West’s policy that
has tried to turn this Shiite-Sunni issue into a fault-line for many years. The
US saw it as fault-line and it exploited it very badly in Iraq that led to
thousands of very tragic deaths and events such as attacks on holy shrines etc.
These are the weapons that the opponents of Iran use in this region rather
successfully. However, it is not a fault-line for the people in the region who
live with it very comfortably. Although there is a certain dialectical tension
within the Iranian revolution from the very beginning regarding the
neighborhood, there is no great evidence that Iran possesses an expansionist
policy.
A degree of distrust between the Arabs and
Iran cannot be denied, yet the Arab States and Iran are wise in a sense that
they do not fall into this trap easily. Perhaps the more obvious massage from
Iran to Arabs is that it has no hegemonic intentions and it would like to have
friendly relations with the neighbors as its relations with UAE and Dubai are
excellent in a way that UAE handles the bulk of Iran’s trade in particular.
The leader of the revolution, Imam
Khomeini, kept on repeating endlessly that Iranian revolution was not sectarian
but a Muslim or an Islamic revolution in nature. However, there are other
voices in Iran which see the Iranian revolution, first and for most, as a
Shiite revolution. That tension is there but this is not a tension that any
other state should worry about too much because the Iranian decisions at the
state level are always practical and pragmatic regardless of their internal
discourse and internal debate. The Hezbollah-Iran relation is not simply a
Shiite nexus. It is, in fact, against the terrible injustice that has been done
to Palestine and Lebanon that have been invaded a number of times in the past 6
decades. In the case of Palestine, Hamas is a Sunni dominated organization but
it has an excellent relation with Iran.
The fact of the matter is that the US has
not succeeded in creating an Arab/Sunni front against Iran/Shiite. It is a tug
of war and the key of course is whether or not president Obama shows
perseverance in dealing with Iran peacefully and developing a proper dialogue.
Kurdish Problem
Kurds are the third largest ethnic group in the Islamic World, The
Islamic World has been unable to deal with Nationalism, Democracy, ethnic
diversity and sectarian diversify. The Kurds are spread over a number of
countries in the Middle East and have been repressed. The Kurdish issue is used
by outsiders to keep the Islamic States off the balance. There is urgent need
to have this issue resolved through the Islamisation of democracy and
nationalism, Islam itself does not accept ethnic and racial diversity as
reasons for a separate identity but the conditions laid down by Islam for all
citizens need to be clearly understood and implemented in letter and spirit.
The
US realized that a weakened Iraq will create a regional instability that will
benefit neither the Americans nor any other power. This awareness arrested the
vigorous pursuit of tripartite division of Iraq in which Shiite would dominate
South, Sunni in the Center and Kurds in the North. Even though Iraqi society
has always been laden with primordial ethnic sentiments but the Iraqi sense of
nationalism was very distinct when it came to fighting against the external
forces. It was this inherent nationalism that came into play in 1930 when the
Iraqi society fought against the British.
The same pattern has continued and the
successive US administrations—Bush and Obama—have been forced to view Iraqi
insurgency as a nation-wide movement directed against the foreign forces. This
realization exposed to the protagonists of Balkanization policy that it will
take extraordinary and risky effort to divide up the country into three small
units. So, the balkanization logic was trumped by the massive reassertion of
the Iraqi nationalism against the American occupation of their country.
Therefore Iraq has survived as a united entity not because Washington wanted it
that way but more because of Iraqi people’s unwillingness to fall prey to the
balkanization schemes promoted by neocons.
Fanning the fire of Kurdish separatism in
Iraq might not serve the interests of any of the regional power including
Syria, Turkey and Iran: Kurds are living in very large numbers in all the three
countries. Turkey has had the problem of Kurdish uprising and irredentism.
These regional powers have vested interests in keeping the Kurdish minority
well within their separate borders. The broader movement for Kurdistan can
destabilize all the three and let lose centrifugal forces of ethnic
balkanization. Because of these dangers, there is an implicit regional
consensus that Iraqi Kurds should stay within Iraq. At the same time, there is
a distinct realization that Iraqi Kurds should be given greater sense of
participation within the framework of a united Iraqi state. While it may seem
tempting for Iran to fan the fires of ethnic separatism in Iraq, but the
adverse blowback effects of this in the form of greater Kurdistan movement
override this temptation.
Quran and Nationalism
Quran has explicitly rejected the basis of
nationalism, and states that language, color and race are no criteria for unity
and privilege. The only criteria are belief and virtue. A common ideology is
the basis of the unity of the Islamic ummah, not race, country, language or
even culture. The goal of nationalism is to create national units, whereas the goal of
Islam is universal unity. To nationalism what matters the most is
loyalty and attachment to the homeland, whereas to Islam, it is God and
religion. Nationalism gives authenticity to geographical boundaries and racial
distinctions, whereas Islam negates them. Nationalism inclines to limitation
and race, but Islam assumes a universal outlook.
Nationalism
attaches value only to the historical traditions, culture, civilization, ideas
and historical figures of its own nation, but Islam's vision goes beyond the
frontier, race, tribe and nation. Moses pbuh, Jesus pbuh, and Muhammad
pbuh are considered as belonging to all
mankind. Islam wishes all nations to regard the Quran as their Book, and the
Ka'aba as their Qibla, and true leaders of Islam as their leaders.
It
is very hard for nationalism to accept this view. According to its limited
vision, it considers the entry of Islam as a transgression or as something
dangerous. It associates the nation to Cyrus and Darius . It intends to revive
its ancient past which Islam calls paganism. Islam curses the Pharaoh, but
Egyptian nationalism makes him a national hero to be worshipped.
Islamic concept of Society and nationalism
Islam says that all the Muslims in the
world are members of the same body and all Islamic nations, Arab, non-Arab,
Turk, Afghan, Indian, black, white and yellow must belong to one ummah in their
belief. But nationalism considers the religious solidarity of a country with
other nations as a danger for national and tribal identity
The progress of the Islamic revolution did
away with this idea and with tribal organization; with the tempestuous slogan
of “There is no god but God", it made conviction and ideology prevail over
all attachments to blood, territory and language, next to paganism and
polytheism, the prejudice of blood, land, ancestors and tribe is the greatest
enemy of Islam. The Prophet (S) fought strongly against it until he removed these
barriers in the way of the divine ideology of Islam. The hostility between
national prejudice and Islam is not a new phenomenon. It began with the advent
of Islam.
Tribe worship (tribalism) and tribalistic
sentiments have always been a threat to Islam. The nationalist Arabs take pride
in their being Arab, not in being Muslims. An Egyptian thinks of his Pharaoh. A
Turk tries to show his connection with Chengiz and Halaku. An Iranian takes
pride in Cyrus, Darius, Buzarjomehr, Mani and Mazdak, instead of pride in
Muhammad pbuh and Ali ra. An Indian makes heroes of the mythical Hindu figures,
and instead of going to the well of Zamzam, he seeks the River Ganges. In this
way, the entity of Islam is endangered. That is why Islam has always been
hostile to nationalism.
Simple patriotic sentiments, so long as
they do not contravene the higher conviction of man are permissible in Islam,
like the affection one feels towards one's father, son and family. But as
already shown, nationalism does not stop at simple sentiments. It is a
socio-political creed and an actual way of life which aims at a full control of
man's individual and social conduct. Islam, too, being a school having its own
independent, spiritual, practical, political and social system and comprising a
particular set of beliefs, it naturally comes into conflict with the school of
nationalism
The
unity of religion and politics is regarded as one of the central elements of an
Islamic government. Sayyid Hasan Mudarris (d.1938/39), a distinguished
clergyman who represented the people in the Iranian parliament and finally was
poisoned and martyred by King Reza Pahlavi, declared that "The foundation
of our politics is our religion," and also professed that "Our
religion is the same as our politics and our politics is the same as our
religion."
In
Imam Khomeini's opinion, nationalism is one of the causes of the disasters and
miseries faced by Muslims today. He writes in fact that those who try to revive
nationalism are struggling against Islam. Imam Khomeini also states:
The
plan of the great powers and their affiliates in the Muslim countries is to
separate and divide the various strata of Muslims, whom God has declared
brothers, under the guise of Kurd, Arab, Turk, Fars, etc. nations and even make
them regard themselves as enemies of one another. This is against the path of
Islam and the Qur'an.
He
furthermore remarks that: "Those who, in the name of nationalism,
factionalism, etc., create schism and disunity among Muslims, are armies of
Devil, opponents of the holy Qur'an and helping agents of the
superpowers." Imam Khomeini clearly identified nationalism with
reactionary forces and with colonial powers who encouraged nationalistic
feelings among Muslims in order to foster disunity
According
to Islamic teachings, prejudice is strongly condemned. The Prophet pbuh said:
"Whosoever possesses in his heart 'asabiyyah ... even to the extent of a
mustard seed, God will raise him on the Day of resurrection with the (pagan)
Beduins of the jahiliyyah (the pre-Islamic era)." According to one
definition,
...
'asabiyyah is an inner psychic quality which is manifested in patronizing and
defending one's kindred and those with whom one has some kind of affinity or
relation, whether it be religious creed or ideology, or whether it be soil or
home. The affinity may also be similarity of profession or the relationship of
teacher and pupil, or something else.
Prior
to the spread of Islam, the Arabs were a tribal society. They had a strong
sense of 'asabiyyah towards their own groups. Islam challenged this prejudicial
spirit and declared that the division of human beings into different tribes and
races had only been willed by Allah in order to allow people to recognize one
another more readily, not to give a sense of superiority to one tribe or nation
over another. This is because in the sight of Allah, it is an individual's
virtue and piety that functions as the key element of his superiority
According
to a hadith the Prophet pbuh said: "O you mankind! All of you are from
Adam and Adam was created from earth (clay). There is no superiority of Arab
over non-Arab except through the virtue of piety (God fearing)."
The
Prophet, once addressing the Quraysh, said: "O People of Quraysh! Verily
one's honour and pride should be due to one's Islam ... (neither to his/her
blood nor to his/her race)." He insisted that Arabism was not a matter of
narcissism; it was merely a language (like other languages) spoken by Arabs. In
the Prophet's eyes, it was only by means of faith and good behaviour only that
a man could achieve a higher position.
Islam and Nationalism
Nationalism
has been one of the determining forces in modern history. It originated in
eighteenth- century Western Europe; during the nineteenth century it spread all
over Europe; in the twentieth century it has become a world-wide movement it
was not until the end of eighteenth century that nationalism in the modern
sense of the word became a generally recognized sentiment increasingly molding
all public and private life.
"A
nation is a unity of attitudes which derives from a unity of historical
experience." Nationalism, from his point of view, "is the conviction,
the consciousness of a people that they are united in one group, one nation. In
general, nationalism by its very nature excludes all parties who do not share
the 'desire to live as one'; ... nationalism actually belittles all groups
which do not feel that they are 'one group, one nation' with the people; ...
Nationalism in principle rejects all attitudes which do not stem from a 'unity
of historical experience.’ Nationalism is a state of mind, in which the supreme
loyalty of the individual is felt to be due to the nation-state. A deep
attachment to one's native soil, to local traditions and to established
territorial authority has existed in varying strength throughout history.
Nationalism
is a secular ideology according to which religion and state, politics and faith
should be separated from one another. One of the mottos most often expressed by
Egyptian nationalists was: "The religion belongs to Allah, but the country
belongs to all." What this statement intended to say was that religion is
a personal issue which falls outside the framework of public life. Religious
thought should not interfere with social-political decision-making, for it is
the nation and not religion that deserves the loyalty of a society. Nationalism
rejects religion's claim to be regarded as the fundamental element of unity.
Accordingly, religion after all undermines national unity and causes religious
minorities to live separate from each other. Nationalism teaches us that the only
instrument of unity is human being's tendency towards geographical, racial and
linguistic identification. For these reasons, nationalism encourages secularism
and consequently, religion and everything else that is perceived as threat to
national unity must be sacrificed for its sake
Islam and Nationalism divergences
Unlike other religions such as
Christianity, Buddhism etc, Islam is not confined to religious rites and
metaphysical convictions. Had Islam been only a religion of devotions, it might
have agreed with nationalism. But Islam is a religion with asocial and
philosophical worldview, and provides for economic and political principles.
Nationalism, too, has its own social and political principles based however on
different beliefs and criteria. Therefore, conflict between Islam and
nationalism is inevitable. The Islamic ideology is not compatible with any
other ideology on the question of sovereignty over the private and social life
of Muslims. A Muslim cannot at the same time be a Muslim and a polytheist, or a
Muslim and communist. In Islam, there is no room for one to be a loyal and
genuine nationalist. It is a question of identity, and one negates the other
Muslim Thinkers
In
the nineteenth century the Muslim world was stirred by the teachings of two
insightful figures, Sayyid Jamal al-Din (1838- 1896/97) and Shaykh Muhammad
'Abduh (1849-1905), the "two champions of the Pan-Islamic movement."
These two Muslim thinkers and particularly Sayyid Jamal al-Din were among the
first figures who "inspired feelings of resistance to the danger of
Western imperialism in the hearts of the Muslim peoples" and forced them
to think of an Islamic front against imperialism.
Sayyid
himself used to hide his own nationality for he preferred not to be known as an
individual belonging to a specific nation so that the Western colonialists
might motivate others against him88. He stated that there is no
nationality for Muslims except Islam89.
Sayyid
was chief among individuals who "were the first to seize upon the
Pan-Islamic idea, and became its propagandists." Familiar with the ancient
civilization and power of the East, he "yearned to rouse it from a state
of complete decadence. He recognized all the menace of existing conditions and
the need of a solid alliance against Christian Europe .
Sayyid
Jamal al-Din "conceived the idea of Pan-Islam", in 1882 while in
Constantinpole, where he made a "deep impression upon" Ottoman Sultan
Abdul- Hamid II. The Turkish Sultan developed and supported the idea of
Pan-Islam "as a deliberate policy and attempt to restore to the office of
Caliph its ancient significance as the chief and protector of all
Muhammedans."
The
Sultan sent delegates to the Muslim world "to rally all believers behind
their caliph." Consequently, even among the orthodox Arabs, Shi'ites, and
Sunnites, the Pan-Islamic idea received an encouraging response, although
theoretically they could not recognize Abdul-Hamid as caliph, probably because
they realized that the Qur'an did not predict the office of Caliph. Instead
they believed that such an office "sprang from military and political
needs." During the revival of Pan-Islamism, the office of caliphate, after
having long been void of all significance, "rose again to importance,
especially through Abdul-Hamid who endeavoured to restore the authority of the
Caliph." In spite of a consciousness of Islamic affinity, politically
nationalism was the stronger force. Attempts to revive the Caliphate (which
Mustafa Kemal abolished in Turkey in 1924) as a pan-Islamic movement ...
failed.
Iqbal and present chaos
in Muslim lands (Quoted in original)
[[1a]] It cannot be
denied that Islam, regarded as an ethical ideal plus a certain kind of polity –
by which expression I mean a social structure regulated by a legal system and
animated by a specific ethical ideal – has been the chief formative factor in
the life-history of the Muslims of India. It has furnished those basic emotions
and loyalties which gradually unify scattered individuals and groups, and finally
transform them into a well-defined people, possessing a moral consciousness of
their own. The structure of Islam as a
society is almost entirely due to the working of Islam as a culture inspired by
a specific ethical ideal. What I mean to say is that Muslim society, with its
remarkable homogeneity and inner unity, has grown to be what it is, under the
pressure of the laws and institutions associated with the culture of Islam.
[[1b]] The ideas set free
by European political thinking, however, are now rapidly changing the outlook
of the present generation of Muslims both in India and outside India. Our
younger men, inspired by these ideas, are anxious to see them as living forces
in their own countries, without any critical appreciation of the facts which
have determined their evolution in Europe. In Europe Christianity was
understood to be a purely monastic order which gradually developed into a vast
church organisation. The protest of Luther was directed against this church
organisation, not against any system of polity of a secular nature, for the
obvious reason that there was no such polity associated with Christianity. And
Luther was perfectly justified in rising in revolt against this organisation;
though, I think, he did not realise that in the peculiar conditions which
obtained in Europe, his revolt would eventually mean the complete displacement
of [the] universal ethics of Jesus by the growth of a plurality of national and
hence narrower systems of ethics.
[[1c]] Thus the upshot of
the intellectual movement initiated by such men as Rousseau and Luther was the
break-up of the one into [the] mutually ill-adjusted many, the transformation
of a human into a national outlook, requiring a more realistic foundation, such
as the notion of country, and finding expression through varying systems of
polity evolved on national lines, i.e. on lines which recognise territory as
the only principle of political solidarity. If you begin with the conception of
religion as complete other-worldliness, then what has happened to Christianity
in Europe is perfectly natural. The universal ethics of Jesus is displaced by
national systems of ethics and polity. The conclusion to which Europe is
consequently driven is that religion is a private affair of the individual and
has nothing to do with what is called man's temporal life.
[[1d]] Islam does not
bifurcate the unity of man into an irreconcilable duality of spirit and matter.
In Islam God and the universe, spirit and matter, Church and State, are organic
to each other. Man is not the citizen of a profane world to be renounced in the
interest of a world of spirit situated elsewhere. To Islam, matter is spirit
realising itself in space and time. Europe uncritically accepted the duality of
spirit and matter, probably from Manichaean thought. Her best thinkers are
realising this initial mistake today, but her statesmen are indirectly forcing
the world to accept it as an unquestionable dogma. It is, then, this mistaken
separation of spiritual and temporal which has largely influenced European
religious and political thought and has resulted practically in the total
exclusion of Christianity from the life of European States. The result is a set
of mutually ill-adjusted States dominated by interests not human but national.
And these mutually ill-adjusted States, after trampling over the moral and
religious convictions of Christianity, are today feeling the need of a
federated Europe, i.e. the need of a unity which the Christian church
organisation originally gave them, but which, instead of reconstructing it in
the light of Christ's vision of human brotherhood, they considered fit to
destroy under the inspiration of Luther.
[[1e]] A Luther in the
world of Islam, however, is an impossible phenomenon; for here there is no
church organisation similar to that of Christianity in the Middle Ages,
inviting a destroyer. In the world of Islam we have a universal polity whose
fundamentals are believed to have been revealed but whose structure, owing to
our legists' [=legal theorists'] want of contact with the modern world, today
stands in need of renewed power by fresh adjustments. I do not know what will
be the final fate of the national idea in the world of Islam. Whether Islam
will assimilate and transform it, as it has before assimilated and transformed
many ideas expressive of a different spirit, or allow a radical transformation
of its own structure by the force of this idea, is hard to predict. Professor
Wensinck of Leiden (Holland) wrote to me the other day: "It seems to me
that Islam is entering upon a crisis through which Christianity has been
passing for more than a century. The great difficulty is how to save the
foundations of religion when many antiquated notions have to be given up. It
seems to me scarcely possible to state what the outcome will be for
Christianity, still less what it will be for Islam." At the present moment
the national idea is racialising the outlook of Muslims, and thus materially
counteracting the humanizing work of Islam. And the growth of racial consciousness
may mean the growth of standards different [from] and even opposed to the
standards of Islam.
[[1f]] I hope you will
pardon me for this apparently academic discussion. To address this session of
the All-India Muslim League you have selected a man who is [=has] not despaired
of Islam as a living force for freeing the outlook of man from its geographical
limitations, who believes that religion is a power of the utmost importance in
the life of individuals as well as States, and finally who believes that
Islam is itself Destiny and will not suffer a destiny. Such a man cannot
but look at matters from his own point of view. Do not think that the problem I
am indicating is a purely theoretical one. It is a very living and practical
problem calculated to affect the very fabric of Islam as a system of life and
conduct. On a proper solution of it alone depends your future as a distinct
cultural unit in India. Never in our history has Islam had to stand a greater
trial than the one which confronts it today. It is open to a people to modify,
reinterpret or reject the foundational principles of their social structure;
but it is absolutely necessary for them to see clearly what they are doing
before they undertake to try a fresh experiment. Nor should the way in which I am
approaching this important problem lead anybody to think that I intend to
quarrel with those who happen to think differently. You are a Muslim assembly
and, I suppose, anxious to remain true to the spirit and ideals of Islam. My
sole desire, therefore, is to tell you frankly what I honestly believe to be
the truth about the present situation. In this way alone it is possible for me
to illuminate, according to my light, the avenues of your political action.
At
the very outset of the movement of Pan-Islam, the Western colonial powers,
mainly France and England, realized the danger of this newborn doctrine. They
tried as a result to defeat this movement before it grew and acquired strength.
They began to explore every means of destroying Muslim unity. One of the most
effective methods utilized in this regard was to encourage nationalist feelings
among Arabs and Turks in order to create barriers between the various peoples
of the Muslim world. This strategy was aimed in particular at the Ottoman
Empire. Thus, it was no accident that the first nationalist aspirations arose
in the dependencies of the latter.
It
is asserted that three Jewish thinkers from Europe motivated the thought of
Turk Nationalism. This is confirmed by the famous 0rientalist Bernard Lewis in
his Islam in History. According to him, Arthur Lumley David (1832-1811) was the
first one who encouraged the feeling of nationalism among the Turks. He was a
British Jewish who departed to Turkey and distributed a book known as
Preliminary Discourses trying to confirm the excellence and superiority of Turk
race to Arab and other nations.
In
any case, the establishment of nationalist movements in Muslim world was not
the result of a real consciousness or awareness among Muslims. Rather it was
the fruit of Western colonialism. Kohn claims that the rise of nationalism in
countries outside Western Europe during this period was influenced by the West.
"Yet this very dependence on the West hurt the pride of the native
educated class, as soon as it began to develop its own nationalism."
Arab world and Nationalism
In
the early 1950s, a series of military coups brought young Arab nationalist
officers to power in many Arab countries, including Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Yemen
and Algeria. It was during this period that Arab nationalism, expressed in
exclusive, radical and even socialist discourse, became the official ideology
of the Arab states.
But
the military background of the ruling forces, their fragile base of legitimacy,
and the sweeping programs of modernization and centralization they pursued,
turned the Arab nationalist entity into an authoritarian state. One of the
major results of this development was the eruption of a series of
confrontations between the Arab nationalist regimes and the Islamic political
forces, in which questions of power, identity and legitimacy were intertwined.
One
of the first confrontations came in 1954, when Egypt embarked on a desperate
drive to destroy its Islamic opponents. Thousands of Muslim activists were
jailed, often without trial, and subjected to East German methods of torture
and psychological destruction, while eminent ulama
- Muslim intellectuals - were executed or forced to live in permanent exile.
Supported
by scores of nationalist intellectuals and brandishing a utopian project of
socialist development enveloped in anti-imperialist rhetoric, the Arab state
accused its Islamic opponents of being reactionary, employing religion for
political purposes and serving the interests of foreign powers. The Islamists,
in turn, depicted Egypt's radical regime and its supporters in a
monochromatic picture of a deliberate war against Islam and the Islamic
identity of the Arab peoples. In many respects, Arab nationalism (or Arabism as
it was then called) was the political expression of the reformist discourse of
Rashid Rida, Abd al-Rahman al-Kawakbi, Tahir al-Jaza’iri, Abd al-Hamid
al-Zahrawi, and their students.
For
the Arab-Islamic reformists, Arabism was meant to reassert the Arab identity,
seen by increasing numbers of the Arabs as the answer to the Ottoman failure to
defend Islam and protect the Arab and Muslim lands. In this sense, Arabism was
not only defined in Islamic terms, but was also envisioned as inseparable from
the Islamic revival.
During the inter-war period (although students of the Arab-Islamic reform movement continued to play a major role in the Arab anti-imperialist struggle) the gradual transformation of the social and intellectual making of the Arab elites contributed to the evolvement of an exclusive, ethnically based Arabist narrative.
During the inter-war period (although students of the Arab-Islamic reform movement continued to play a major role in the Arab anti-imperialist struggle) the gradual transformation of the social and intellectual making of the Arab elites contributed to the evolvement of an exclusive, ethnically based Arabist narrative.
In
the face of the Arabs’ failure to establish their united and independent state
after World War I, young Arab nationalists, like Darwish al-Miqdadi, Zaki
al-Arsuzi, Edmond Rabat and Qunstantin Zurayq, graduates of the American
University of Beirut and French and British universities, sought to
re-emphasize the project of Arab unity by employing the power of an imagined
ethnic essence.
The
French bombardment of Damascus in the mid 1920s, the British disregard of the
Arab opposition to the Jewish immigration into Palestine, and the brutal
crushing of the Palestinian revolt of 1936-39, as well as the imperialist
divisive policies in Morocco, all contributed to intensifying the Arab feeling
of defeat, and thus to the radicalization of the Arab nationalist discourse.
And while Islam had been the ultimate goal of the Arab-Islamic reformists,
Islam was now conceived by Sati' al-Husari and Zaki al-Arsuzi, and many others
of their generation, as a mere validating element of Arab nationalism.
But since the top priority for all shades of the Arab political forces during the inter-war period was national liberation and independence, it was not until the early 1950s that the divisive political climate would develop. Even the Islamic vision of the Young Muslim Men Society and the Muslim Brotherhood was coloured with a strong belief in Arab unity and Arab identity. With the rise of the Baath Party, the Arab Nationalist Movement (Harakat al-Qawmiyyin al-'Arab), and the Arab-nationalist military officers, the divorce between the Arab nationalists and Arab Islamists reached a critical stage.
Inter-Arab
conflictBut since the top priority for all shades of the Arab political forces during the inter-war period was national liberation and independence, it was not until the early 1950s that the divisive political climate would develop. Even the Islamic vision of the Young Muslim Men Society and the Muslim Brotherhood was coloured with a strong belief in Arab unity and Arab identity. With the rise of the Baath Party, the Arab Nationalist Movement (Harakat al-Qawmiyyin al-'Arab), and the Arab-nationalist military officers, the divorce between the Arab nationalists and Arab Islamists reached a critical stage.
Equally
significant is the absence of any serious attempt to (re-)defines the relation
between Islam and Arab nationalism, or to formulate a theoretical framework for
a common agenda, especially in regard to the state in question, democracy and
the place of religion in Arab society and politics. Yet, the meeting of the
Arab nationalists and Arab Islamists has opened a new chapter in modern Arab
history.
In
many respects, Islamism and Arab nationalism have been, and still are, the most
powerful movements in Arab political and cultural life. It is true that neither
holds power in any of the Arab countries, but their influence in society and
within civil organisations is beyond doubt. For the increasing diversification
of Arab cultural systems during the past few decades, nationalism and Islamism
can no longer claim to possess an exclusive hold over the Arabs' imagination. All
this, however, should in no way diminish the importance and meaning of their
convergence for the future course of Arab politics and culture. For more than
half a century, the Arabs have lacked a solid, durable level of consensus, a middle
ground, around which the political process normally revolves and in which
political stability is anchored.
SOLUTIONS:-
Knowledge,
character, moral sublimity, economic strength, political power, military
capability, technological prowess, and social cohesion are key
elements of this preparation. Without setting our own house in order and
mobilizing all the resources at hand to prepare to play the rightful role in
the world, nothing can be achieved.
The Muslim Ummah has no option but to move towards greater cooperation, unity and collective self-reliance. Regional
groupings, trade and financial arrangements, educational and technological
alliances, and political co-ordinations are stepping stones to a global order that
is more balanced and just, and that represents a fair state of equilibrium
between different nations, socio-political systems and civilizations. Muslim
unity could be an effective guarantee against decimation of Muslim countries
and the eclipse of their civilizational identity in the face of the onslaught
of unmanaged globalization. Muslims must plan and prepare themselves to play a
positive role both to protect their identity and interests, and to make the
world a better place for all.
The right course of
action for the Muslims is dialogue, contact,
participation, and cooperation at the global level. This must be an
essential component of their strategy. Their response to the global challenges
must be proactive and positive; that is the only way, not only to survive, but
also to make their own mark on history.
Economic Integration
A central Islamic bank
should finance all projects that aim at economic freedom of the Muslim World.
The economic integration of Muslim states through a network of interconnected
rail and road links, liberalized trade with minimal trade barriers among Muslim
states and common tariff, free movement of businessmen and entrepreneurs, a
central Islamic bank to finance development projects and bailout packages, to name
but a few, is needed. A Muslim Common Market (MCM) should also be explored and
economic integration with free flow of capital, goods and labor be achieved
Freedom of Muslim Lands
Muslim leaders on the platform of the OIC need to address a million-dollar
question: how to negotiate an exit strategy for the US and its allies stuck in
Iraq and Afghanistan? They also need to
watch out for the meddlesome role of foreign powers in the Arab Spring, and
perform their due role to ensure that stable regimes are soon in place in all
‘destabilised’ countries. This
is an alarming situation the Muslim and Arab leaderships are either unconscious
of this or because of vested interests are hands in gloves with the economic
and political leaders of the West. They are thus being willingly exploited. One
can hope, however, that this crisis will eventually open the eyes of the people
and leaderships of the Arab and Islamic countries, and they would realize that
the only way to graceful survival is the path of self-reliance. In Middle East
and elsewhere in the Muslim world, there exists a consumer economy with no
production and technological base, and without developing the required manpower
skills. These are deficiencies that need to be addressed forthwith, for that
one key essential is that the economy is gradually and partially delinked from
the global system – partial de-linkage, because it cannot get out of it
completely. Such important activities as exports, imports, investment, movement
of money, people, and goods, and the flow of investment, must continue
unhindered. What needs to be effectively changed is the relationship of
dependence, and building in its place a kind of independent relationship, where
Muslim World should reset priorities and re-manage its resources in its own
interests keeping in-view both opportunities as well as the cost it has paid
over the years.
Delinking
of Muslim Lands
So far as partial delinking is concerned,
the Middle East and the Muslim World need to give priority to the following
three vital areas: education; technology adaptation; a growth strategy
in
food security and gradual self-reliance and development of an industrial and
technological production base. If they succeed in this, they would,
in due course of time, be in a position to make their own policies and
decisions. At the same time, self-reliance and self-sufficiency should be
treated as two different aspects. Self-sufficiency cannot be achieved. What is
attainable is self-reliance, which means that a country of region should not be
dependent on others to an extent that their economic and political priorities
are imposed on it – rendering it unable to protect and project its own
priorities. This is what should be the objective. This is exactly what Europe
and China have done vis-à-vis America. The Muslim World, taken as a whole, has
much more potential. What they lack are political will and a coordinated
strategy. When one talks about gradual delink age, one would have to keep in
view all the above- mentioned dimensions, namely:
(i)Development of the economic, industrial and production base
within a country;
(ii)Food self-sufficiency of which food security is an
extremely important element; and
(iii) Development of local market to a sustainable base to
local production.
The above strategy is definitely going to
bear fruit and as a result of that the Muslim World’s dependence on the West
will rapidly decrease. As the example of Russia is , which ultimately was able
to survive in the post-Berlin Wall phase should be taken as an example . One
factor that enabled Russia to survive economic onslaught was the huge reserve
of informal economy, which was not dependent on global trade. We have before us
today the glowing example of the rising China, which has grown also because of the
large market within. The country has then gone into industrialization, import
of technology for opening up an outreach towards the world and American
markets. The Muslim World needs to have a similar strategy. This is not a one
off operation; it will take time. It has to be carefully planned and a
transition has to be made towards it.
Strategies
Muslims will have to go deeper into
analyzing the current scenario. Their strategies should not just be reactive;
they should not go for confrontation only. They need to develop a proactive
counter-strategy to fight the Islamophobia of the West and educate them in
understanding the true worth of Islam and Muslims as a nation which stands for
noble values and is committed to serve humanity, as envisioned in the Quran.
That counter-strategy evolves a futuristic socio-cultural and politico-economic
standpoint. Moreover, the Arabs and the Muslim World should have their own
vision, priorities and objectives. Without setting their own house in
order, they cannot succeed. The human rights teachings of the Koran if
implemented would eradicate the issues created by the sectarian, ethic, and
racial divides.
Beating violence with violence,
blackmailing with black-mailing and bullying with bullying is not the solution.
Muslims will have to have a long-term strategy, which is based on reality and
clear vision of the future. Developing a counter strategy that regards people
of the West as enemies would be counter-productive. We need a very well thought
out strategy giving a message to and initiating friendships with the people of
the West. We will have to distance, however, from groups with vested interests
in the West and their collaborators in the Muslim World.
The Arab and the Muslim World are also to
disengage from those who are misusing Islam, either honestly or as tools of the
Muslim’s enemies. It is not appropriate to visualize a conflict, clash, and war
scenario as the only option for the Muslim World and the West. The Muslims need
much more serious thinking, research, analysis, dialogue, and a dynamic
leadership that is not stooge of the West, but trusts own people, a leadership
that promotes and develops an Islamic ethos. Then they would definitely be able
to live with dignity, equality and honor and with an approach where mutuality
and commonality of interests take precedence over conflict and clash
1. REESTABLISHMENT OF
CENTRAL AUTHORITY: -
The cause of Muslim
fragmentation is because of the loss of a sacred central authority of Khalifah,
we must make a sincere effort to re establish the Khilafah. It must be according
to Quranic principals. Otherwise, it
will be a failure. To achieve this goal is a Herculean task, but can be done,
not impossible. Peaceful approach should be taken, through diplomacy,
disciplined dialogue and tolerance. In order to succeed step number two must be
taken. The moribund OIC needs to be revived for
the purpose to integrate vast resources of the Muslim world and bring about
intellectual, economic and political renaissance in it. The focus of reforms
and measures in the OIC should be on intellectual revivalism of all Muslims
through a network of world-class universities with state-of-the-art facilities
established all over the Muslim world under the umbrella of the OIC. Muslim
leaders should agree on certain basic principles representing ‘common’ foreign
policy of the OIC. For example, they can agree not to support attack on any
member-state by a foreign aggressor or not to allow stationing of foreign
forces on their lands without unanimous decision of the OIC, common stance on
political issues like Palestine, Kashmir , Rohingyas, and so on.
2. CREATE UNITY: -
Open the Quran, understand the final revelation, and propagate it
to the masses and win their hearts Highlight our similarities, rather than be
fixed on our differences. Human rights
agenda of the Koran will help create unity .
3. LEARN ARABIC
LANGUAGE:
Bulks of the Muslims today are non Arabs, living outside the Arab
lands, which neither speak nor understand the language of Quran and Prophet
Mohammed(pbuH). All Muslims must learn to read write and speak Arabic language
for effective communication. If we can master English, French, Spanish and
German, there is no excuse not to learn Arabic. This should be in addition to
their other regional languages.
4. EDUCATION: -
Present system of education is given to us by colonial powers,
secular system of education, which orientates us towards Capitalistic
mentality. It teaches us, myself first, while Islam wants us to meet the needs
of others first. This system of education transplants Western mind on the
Eastern shoulder. It must be replaced by Islamic system of education. Allama
Iqbal’s philosophy of Khudi must be reassessed and practically implemented in the
new system of education. This will infuse the ruh of Islam among the younger
generation, which will be more community orientated.
5. ELIMINATION OF
PRIESTHOOD: -
In Quranic Islam, there is no place for priesthood or Mullaism.
The word Maulvi, Mulla, and Maulana is not used with the names of companions of
prophet. This means these titles are the invention of Ajmi Islam. Priesthood is
strong arm of Zoroastrianism, Iranians of that time brought with them Mullaism
and introduced into the Quranic Islam, during Abbasi period. At present, If one
carefully looks around, the newer sects are produced by these Maulvis, through
the process of personality worship. Therefore, those madarsas that produce
Mullas should be curtailed and gradually abolished, so that further divisions in
the nation can be eliminated.
6. DEVELOP ISLAMIC
ECONOMY:
Muslim Economists and scholars should develop models of LARIBA
(interest free) economy. Central Islamic bank and regional Islamic banks should
be developed to finance these projects. Banking should be part of LARIBA
Islamic economy Recent gains in Interest
Free Banking and other tools developed should be made main stream and this
effort needs to be intensified and taken forward .
7. MEDIA:
We can also have a common international media channel as an
official ‘mouthpiece’ of the OIC. In order to present Muslim point of view,
entry into the media is of utmost
importance. Through this vehicle all negativism against Islam should be
challenged. TV, Radio, Magazine and Newspapers must be established. Movies have
a very powerful impact on people. So far Muslims have neglected this powerful
mean of impacting the public. This should be pursued.
8. HAJJ:
The word Hajj is from Hujjat, which means to discuss and find the
solution to the problems. At this annual event, must discuss the problems and
find the solutions for the problems facing the Ummah. Annual program must be
spelled out in front of the Ummah and and in the subsequent year the goals
achieved throughout the year should be presented at the next Hajj. This is the
place where unified policy of the Muslim world must be charted out. It should
become United Nations of Islam. This should be in addition to present rituals
of Hajj. At Hajj, every year, an international appraisal of the World of Islam
should be undertaken by International thinkers, this institution should be
given autonomy and it should publish these assessments and guide lines for the
coming year. This is exactly as per the instructions of the Koran
9. PROTECTION OF RIGHTS
OF MUSLIMS MINORITY:
Muslims, living in Darul-Harb, are facing severe discrimination in
education, jobs, physical insecurity; they are denied religious and political
rights. An effective policy should be charted out to deal with the Governments
of the offender countries. Our resources, our trade should be shared with
those countries, only if they are willing to change their policy towards their
Muslim subjects. Muslims of Kashmir , Palestine, Rohingyas,India, and minorities in Western States need special
attention
10. DIALOGUE WITH NON
MUSLIMS: -
Since the collapse of Communism, all the cold war is shifted toward
Islam. West is suffering from fever of Islamophobia. Christians are made to
believe that green menace is coming after the red menace is dead. This
prejudice is the result of the hate literature, produced by enemies of Islam.
Christians must understand Muslim point
of view. Through interfaith dialogue and through positive literature about
Islam, their fears must be conquered, and sincere friendship must be
established with Christian world. Fair minded, Justice believing Christian
scholars should be encouraged to present real Islam and promote the
understanding between the two communities. If such a plan can be developed, and
dedicated efforts are made, the abysmal fall of ummah will stop and rise will
not be too far away. The West
manufactured this friction between themselves and Islam , the Clash of
Civilizations etc., all contributed to identification of Islam and Muslims as
the enemy. Muslims should present the true face of the religion and the best
method would be to have lands that follow the guidance of the Koran, in
entirety
No comments:
Post a Comment