Our inability to understand is compounded by continued ignorance of the faith and the history of Islam demonstrated by many policymakers, commentators, the media and the general public. Far too many continue to see Islam through explosive headline events and shocking breaking news, judging the many by the radicalized few. There is a tendency to equate Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism with all Islamic movements, political and social, non-violent and violent.
The Taliban’s narrow tribal militant interpretations of Islam―from their restrictions on women to the destruction of ancient Buddhist monuments―have little to do with Islamic doctrine and law. They have been criticized by governments and religious leaders across the Muslim world. Similarly, Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaida are no more representative of Islam than Christians who blow up abortion clinics or the Jewish fundamentalists who assassinated Yitzak Rabin or, like Dr. Baruch Goldstein, slaughtered Muslims at Friday prayer in the Hebron mosque. Yet, a deadly radical minority does exist; they have wrought havoc primarily on their own societies from Egypt to the southern Philippines. Osama Bin Laden and others do appeal to a radicalized minority. They appeal to real as well as imagined injustices and prey on the oppressed, alienated, and marginalized sectors of society.
The Muslim World and the Resurgence of Islam
Making sense of Islam requires not only an awareness of the faith and its diverse interpretations but also the multiple roles that Islam plays in Muslim politics today. The 1.2 billion Muslims of the world live in some 56 Muslim countries, from Africa to Asia, as well as in Europe and America where Islam is the second and third largest religion, respectively. Governments range from monarchies to republics, the religious to the more secular, from America’s allies to our enemies.
Since the Islamic revolution of 1978-79, new self-proclaimed Islamic governments have been created in Iran, Sudan and Afghanistan alongside the older Islamic governments of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. However, simply referring to these governments as fundamentalist states ignores profound differences in the nature of their governments and their relations with the West. These “Islamic” regimes range from a Saudi monarchy to states run by leaders of military coups (Sudan and Pakistan), or clergy (Iran) or former seminary students (Afghanistan’s Taliban). Some (Saudi Arabia and Pakistan) have generally been seen as allies of America and others (Sudan, Iran and Afghanistan) are foes.
From North Africa to Southeast Asia, during the past two decades Islam has been used in responding to myriad political and social issues. Rulers have appealed to Islam to enhance their legitimacy and mobilize popular support. At the same time, Islamically-motivated social organizations have been created to provide much-needed educational, medical, legal and social services and Islamic political movements from conservative and reformist to radical extremist have grown in many states.
Governments have responded in diverse ways to the reassertion of religion in politics. In North Africa, the king of Morocco has combined his Islamic pedigree, as a descendant of the prophet Muhammad, with a modest reform agenda that has included parliamentary elections. Tunisia and Algeria have pursued more secular paths. Tunisia’s Ben Ali after repressing Ennahda (Renaissance Party), the Islamist party that emerged from national elections as the only viable opposition, maintains a tight hold on the reins of government. Algeria struggles with the results of a decade-long civil war that erupted after the Algerian military intervened to deny victory to the democratically elected Islamic Salvation Front (FIS) which had swept both municipal and then parliamentary elections. Algeria’s spiral of violence has pitted extremists in the military against radical Islamists like the Armed Islamic Group, costing more than 100,000 lives.
Old-line Arab socialist states like Iraq and Egypt have taken different paths. The secular Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein has oppressed its own population, threatened the stability of governments in the Middle East, and used Islam to call for a jihad against the West. Egypt under Hosni Mubarak, an ally of the US, has battled and largely suppressed violent extremist groups like the Gamaa Islamiyya (Islamic group). At the same time, the Mubarak government has also increasingly attempted to control its critics including organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood, which in the past several decades has pursued a path of von-violent opposition, as well as professional associations and the media.
Islam Meets the West
In Islam’s encounter with Western culture, Islam is often viewed to be in conflict with liberal democratic ideals. For example, it is ironic to hear some speak of a conflict between Islam and capitalism. Capitalism or its acceptance exists both in its homegrown forms in the Muslim world as well as western-inspired versions. The issue is less about capitalism than about the dangers of western economic hegemony and its side effects, not only on the Muslim world but on the “South” in general. In fact, Islam does not have any problem with many of the essentials of western capitalism. It is important to recall that Muhammad’s earlier followers included prosperous merchants. He himself engaged in financial and commercial transactions to make a living.
The Quran, hadith or traditions about what the Prophet said and did, and Muslim historical experience affirms the right to private property and trade and commerce. In fact, the economic regulations of Islamic jurisprudence form a very sophisticated code. Mosques throughout the world, such as the Umayyad mosque in Damascus and the elegant mosques of old Cairo and Tehran, are often adjoined by magnificent bazaars. Traders and businessmen were among the most successful sector in society and were responsible for the spread of their faith. Perhaps the best response to those who ask whether Islam and capitalism are compatible is to look at the lives of the millions of Muslims who live and work in our midst in America and Europe. Many have come here to enjoy freedom and the opportunities offered by our economic and political systems. Like religious and ethnic minorities before them, they too struggle with issues of identity and assimilation but not with their desire to enjoy the best that we represent. The fact that members of their faith have distorted its teachings and committed an act of terrorism should not diminish their rights to equality under the law, to experience the religious tolerance that our political systems were based on.
“Why do they hate us?”
The temptation is to seek easy justifications to explain away anti-Americanism as simply irrationality, ingratitude, jealousy of our success or hatred for “our way of life.” As we puzzle about “Why do they hate us?” it is time to also realize that they see more than we see. Anti-Americanism is driven not by the blind hatred or religious zealotry of extremists, but also by a frustration and anger with U.S. policy among the mainstream in the Muslim world. Unlike the past, today an international Arab and Muslim media, no longer solely dependent on Western reporters and channels, provides daily coverage of the violence, the disproportionate firepower and number of Palestinian deaths and casualties, as well as the use of American weapons including F16s and Apache helicopters provided to Israel for use against civilians in the occupied territories.
The American administration’s soft-glove treatment of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s heavy-handed policies in the West Bank and Gaza and America’s record of relatively uncritical U.S. support of Israel—witnessed in its levels of aid to Israel, the U.S. voting record in the United Nations, and official statements by the administration and State Department—have proved to be a lightning rod. Further, the West’s espousal of self-determination, democratization, and human rights is often seen as a hypocritical double standard when compared to its policies, such as the impact of sanctions on more than a half million Iraqi children, and sanctions against Pakistan, but a failure to press Israel and India on their nuclear developments. The moral will so evident in Kosovo is seen as totally absent in our policy of permissive neglect in the Chechnyan and Kashmiri conflicts. As a native born American convert to Islam and former government consultant has observed: “America’s bizarre complicity in the genocidal destruction of Chechnya, its tacit support of India’s incredibly brutal occupation of Kashmir, its passivity in the ethnic cleansing of Bosnia, and even America’s insistence on zero casualties in stopping the ethnic cleansing of Kosovo all contribute to the terrorist mentality that is growing all over the world.”
Reacting to Terrorism
As governments respond to the threat of global terrorism, it will be difficult but necessary for our leaders and politicians to lead—and not be led by―a thirst for revenge. The war against global terrorism should not justify a gradual erosion of important principles and values at home or become a green light to authoritarian regimes in the Muslim world to further limit the rule of law and civil society, or repress non-violent opposition. Nor should it affect the need to adopt a more balanced policy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. American and European responses must be proportionate, from military strikes, security measures, and anti-terrorism legislation, to foreign policy. The need to bring the terrorists who attacked our country on Sept. 11 to swift justice and to pursue a war to destroy their cells and bases of operation must be guided by remembrance of past mistakes. It must be balanced by evidence that establishes a direct connection of guilt and by strikes that are focused rather than wide-ranging and indiscriminate. A disproportionate response runs the risk of a backlash in the Middle East and the broader Muslim world—as well as among fellow American and European Muslim citizens—that will erode the good will and support of many and reinforce an image of a superpower again placing itself above international law.
If the above foreign policy issues are not addressed effectively, they will continue to provide a breeding ground for hatred and radicalism, the rise of extremist movements, and recruits for the Bin Ladens of the world. Therefore, it is critical to adopt a long as well as short-term strategy based on a reexamination of U.S. foreign policy and an openness to press our allies, and to challenge ourselves to reconsider policies, strategies and tactics that diffuse the conflicts and clashes confronting future generations.
* John L. Esposito is University Professor and Professor of Religion and International Affairs at Georgetown University. Founding Director of the Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding: History and International Affairs at the Walsh School of Foreign Service, his publications include The Islamic Threat: Myth or Reality? (Oxford University Press).
source: http://www.islamonline.net/english/Crisis/2001/10/article2.shtml
No comments:
Post a Comment