Hello,
The below article, was written by Dr Numan Hanif, who is an expert in International terrorism and security. enjoy!
The Message Islam and Universal Man
Would Russia have turned to Islam after the fall of Communism had the Caliphate remained? Why does the Islamic world persistently refuse to embrace modernity? Can Islam offer an alternative to secular liberalism as a global message?These questions identify not only the past but the present and the future course of history. They project the power and struggle between global messages defining human thought, state, society and systems. No nation or civilisation has ever globalised without the appeal of a message and the medium of state to execute and convey it. Conversely, the loss of a global message has had profound implications for the power and attraction of nations, states and societies.Russia’s global appeal resulted from its message of Communism through the vehicle of the Soviet Union. Peoples throughout the world were drawn by its message and in turn global influence proliferated, threatening the upheaval of established societies.Russia lost her global power once her people rejected Communism. Her military might, technological parity with the West and global attraction disintegrated the moment her message of Communism ceased. The vacuum of a message reduced Russia to an empty shell, an internal system in contradiction and paralysis, reverting to a Russian nationalism which has no message or magnetism for the world. Moreover, it isolates and divides her, devoid of any significance beyond its borders. The deep intellectual nature of the message however has left its mark. After seventy years of refuting the Western message of Capitalism, Russia has been resistant to embracing Secular Liberalism lock stock and barrel.Islam’s message was thrust onto the global theatre through the entity of the Caliphate over a period of fourteen hundred years. It achieved immense success by attracting diverse nations and tribes, stretching from Indonesia to Spain at the height of its power.By abandoning the Caliphate in 1924, Turkey lost its global message and international position along with its influence over the Islamic world. Turkey never recovered from shedding the influence and power of the Caliphate and Islam. Even in Western quarters, Attaturk’s action was considered insane. It was according to the UK Daily Telegraph in 1924;"..One of the most astonishing acts of suicidal recklessness in the history of modern or ancient times".In turn, Turkey has been reduced from the sick man of Europe to the beggar of the East. Despite eighty years of forced, authoritarian and illiberal secularisation, the struggle with Islam continues. Turkey is in the words of Samuel Huntington a ‘torn state’. It remains rejected by the West, ostracized by the Islamic world and in perpetual internal contradiction. The technological and economic gap with the West continues to increase. Secularists dressed in Islamic clothing and enfranchised by the intensely secular Turkish military establishment breed only more confusion, contradiction and paralysis.The New World Order under the patronage of the United States and Europe now spearheads the globalisation of the secular liberal message. With no alternative message to Communism, members of the former Soviet bloc have naturally been the first willing recipients of the global secularisation process. The secular liberal message provides the framework for global governance, consolidating and driving its doctrinal, legal, financial and military hold via the multitude of Western dominated international institutions. This manifestation of global secular power has lead many thinkers in the West to proclaim a secular universalism and Francis Fukyama to even suggest the “End of History” with a utopian secular thought set to completely conquer the material world.It is however, the contention of this essay that thinkers developed in the Western Liberal tradition, have made the momentous mistake of negating Islam as having any message beyond the Islamic world and thus providing any credible challenge. According to Francis Fukyama in his essay, The End of History;“In the contemporary world only Islam has offered a theocratic state as a political alternative to both liberalism and Communism. But the doctrine has little appeal to non-Muslims and it is hard to believe that it will take on a universal significance.”[1]Such statements are however in contradiction to the fact that a cursory reading of world history is testament to Islam’s intellectual attraction beyond the ‘Arab man’. Islam’s successful assimilation of Spain and other parts of Europe as well as Africa, Central, South and East Asia are undisputable examples from history.History is further witness to the fact that even within Europe; the Islamic message was not eliminated by Western intellectual prowess. It was forcefully removed through a mixture of Muslim genocide in Spain via the Christian led Spanish inquisition and the exploitation of a weak political and military Ottoman position in the Balkans and other parts of Europe.Samuel Huntington’s assertion is thus correct in stating that the West has universalised in relation to Islam not because of its superiority of message, but due to its preponderant skill in military organisation. If the Ottoman military advance had not been stopped at the gates of Vienna, the history of Europe itself would have been a powerful testimony in challenging Fukyama’s statement.This essay will argue that Western thinkers have prematurely announced victory in the war over ‘The Message’. In confining themselves to the comfort and predictability of the western tradition, a serious misunderstanding has occurred in evaluating the fundamental concepts which provide the foundation for the resurrection of Islam as a global message. Secular constructs which have no relationship to the Islamic model of state, such as Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Iran have been incorrectly projected as the failures of the Islamic message to provide political alternatives to the Westphalian secular liberal state paradigm.Instead, study of the Islamic message, as an alternative to the secular liberal idea of the state, individual and society has incorrectly occurred under the framework of secular liberalism and western universalism. Furthermore, Islam’s challenge to secular liberalism predates 9/11 and hence has no relationship with the war on terrorism. Yet western thinkers are all too keen to dismiss Islam superficially on a war which is borne out of particular circumstance i.e. the frustrated but mutated response to a perceived Western military, economic, political and cultural imperialism in the Islamic world.Analysis of the Islamic message as a stand alone concept from its own foundations and sources has accordingly been absent and to a degree sidestepped. As Ken Booth and Tim Dunne point out in the book, Worlds in Collision;“..In the search for a fuller answer, unfortunately, the chief protagonists shy away. It should be a time for introspection, for the deepening of self knowledge; instead, self justification has been the norm”[i].[2]This essay is an attempt to correct this self validation in highlighting the nature of Islam’s alternate model and accordingly its inevitable adoption and resurrection in the Islamic world. It will become clear that Islam and secular Liberalism are destined to clash and compete on a global scale. In contemporary history however, secular liberalism has a distinct advantage. While the Secular Liberal message is conveyed through states, the Islamic message is stateless and relies on the peoples and the Islamic movement. The Islamic movement specifically has not left Islam as simply an idea to revive on its own like a feather in the wind. Whilst Lenin added the State to Marxism in order to facilitate Utopia, the state in the form of a Caliphate is an explicit method required by Islam for its complete implementation and globalisation.The Islamic movement has been instrumental in rejecting Western attempts to dilute the Islamic message through its cross breeding with secular liberalism, considering it an unnatural intercourse between two distinct species which can only lead to the inevitable death of such a hybrid. Even amongst Western thinkers, Turkey is highlighted as a contemporary example of this unnatural fusion. Samuel Huntington in his seminal work, The Clash of Civilisations, points out Turkey’s necessity in turning away from such attempts of synthesis and accordingly overturning its aberrant, confused and torn status if it is to resume its global position and leadership of Islam;“At some point, Turkey could be ready to give up its frustrating and humiliating role as a beggar pleading for membership in the West and to resume it’s much more impressive and elevated role as the principal Islamic interlocutor and antagonist of the West… But to do so it would have to reject Attaturk’s legacy more thoroughly than Russia has rejected Lenin’s.”[3]To this end the Islamic movement and thinkers, Sunni and Shia, have taken on the challenge of defeating and replacing secular liberalism both intellectually and politically. This includes providing a detailed alternative to the current economic and political structure of global order.This essay will draw upon two of the most influential thinkers from the Sunni and Shia schools responsible for constructing Islam as a credible force in challenging Western modernity. Amongst the Sunni thinkers, Taqiudine an Nabahani, a former judge from Palestine and founder of the pan-Islamic Liberation Party was the first to transform classical Islam into a powerful modern paradigm with the aim of reviving Islam, challenging modern ideologies and resurrecting the Caliphate. Nabahani wrote extensively on the doctrinal and systemic differences between Islam, Communism and Secularism. The Islamic Liberation Party is the only group to have published a complete and radical programme for ideological change in the Islamic world including a detailed Islamic constitution.[4]From the Shia thinkers, Baqr as Sadr, founder of the Party of Da’wa in Iraq is considered the philosophical heavy weight in terms of his works on the critique of Communist and secular philosophy. His two major works include Our Philosophy and Our Economy constituting four volumes.
The Message
The Islamic message is founded upon the idea of the spiritual fusion with the material world. There is an appeal to the human mind in terms of affirming God’s existence and the Koran as a divine miracle, both considered as absolute truths. Islam calls for certainty in this matter rejecting the concept of doubt, separation, supposition or mere faith as a foundation of its doctrine.[5]The necessity to worship a Divine Being is built upon an understanding of what is human nature. This is understood as the trait of human weakness manifested by man correctly or incorrectly via the instinct of religiosity. Accordingly, throughout human history, man has sanctified sculpture, the stars, beasts, man, ideas and even the state.The Koran is considered as the utopia of thought and the miracle of language which is open to challenge from any man. The intellectual challenge is not based in the heavenly rules but in the attribute of divinity in their source. Consequently, it is considered as futile to concentrate on criticising the details of the message if the Divine entity and its attribute of perfection manifest in the Koran are not rationally challenged as absolute truths.Islam’s conception of what is man’s happiness is thus argued as the fulfilment of human nature through the sanctification of God and the adherence to a divine system via the Koran.Islam is differentiated from the concept of religion which is considered limited to the relationship of man with God and man with himself. Religion is established to have no connection with defining the relationship between man and man in the form of rules governing state and society. Islam is consequently defined as a way of life or in modern terminology, an ideology.[6]The call to a divine and comprehensive message for man in the form of Sharia is premised upon the understanding of man as a universal being. Human nature and form is deemed a universal concept unchanged throughout time and corrupted only through what is considered as forced and incorrect social engineering via non-divine messages such as Communism and secular liberalism.Universal man is defined in structure to constitute the mind, basic biological needs (food, water, clothing etc) and innate energies or instincts such as self preservation, species and sanctification. This is in comparison to the animal which is considered devoid of the mind and the instinct of religiosity. Without the mind, the animal can never progress as the ability to produce thought is absent. Survival, procreation and organic needs are regarded as the only forces driving its behaviour.[7]Islam’s detailed system and thought is presented as a human arrangement, aimed at organising but not eliminating or allowing free reign to these basic biological requirements and innate or instinctual energies. In doing so, Islam is considered natural in appeal to the described human nature in calling for the elimination of what is rejected as non-divine and hence imperfect, inconsistent and contradictory global messages of man. Islam’s message is thus considered to have universal application and attraction as it calls to mankind in its quality as a human being. Its call to a complete submission to the will of God in the form of a divine system is considered as consistent with human nature.Moreover, Islam is conceptualised as a political as well as a spiritual message. Politics is manifest through detailed rules pertaining to governing human affairs whether they are judicial, economic, social or related to state. This separates Islam from other monotheistic faiths in comprehensively detailing a doctrine of life and its explicit governance through the practice of politics. Thus ethics, politics, governance, war and spirituality are not separated but manifest as an inevitable consequence of applying the message.[8]
The Clash of Messages
Islam recognises no inherent attribute in man towards liberty and freedom. The sanctification of secular liberalism in itself is considered the erroneous manifestation of man’s religious nature. In essence, Islam declares war on the libertarian design to free man from worshipping the perfection of God to enslaving itself to the imperfection of man. Man’s happiness under the Western idea is thus assailed as being impossible through the pursuit of liberty and the Capitalist system.[9]Islam opposes the Western world’s call for a reformation. It has considered the West’s episode with its medieval past to have paralysed its ability to evaluate the concept of religious truth beyond the parameters of its experience with Christianity. Consequently, the West has been charged with making the mistake of evaluating Islam under the same paradigm.Islam rejects the detachment between God and state re-defined by the West as modernity. Modernity is considered to be based on an intellectual paralysis which prevented it from concluding an absolute truth between the asserted contradictory poles of sovereignty between man and God. Islam considers the resulting compromise in the basic secular root of modernity as devoid of an intellectual process and hence its fundamental error.[10]The West’s inability to differentiate between Christianity as a religion and Islam as an ideology is put forward as the dogmatic position of the West’s reformation paradigm. This position is criticised even amongst Western historians. Bernard Lewis states in this regard;“In modern times, there have been many changes, mainly under Western influences, and institutions and professions have developed which bear a suspicious resemblance to the Churches and clerics of Christendom. But these represent a departure from Islam, not a return to it…The very notion of something that is separate or even separable from religious authority, expressed in Christian languages by terms such as lay, temporal or secular, is totally alien to Islamic thought and practice. It was not until relatively modern times that equivalents for these terms existed in Arabic. They were borrowed from the usage of Arabic speaking Christians or newly invented”. [11]The failure to distinguish between the theocratic nature of Papal Christian rule and that of the Islamic ruling structure is highlighted as one such example. The Iranian state is presented by the West as the embodiment of theocratic rule in Islam and consequently its failure to provide an alternative to the western secular political construct. There is however, no accepted concept of a theocracy or clergy in Islam and hence no notion of clerical rule on behalf of God. As Bernard Lewis points out;“Classical Islam did not recognize a separate institution, with a hierarchy and laws of its own, to regulate religious matters. The emergence of a priestly hierarchy and its assumption of ultimate authority in the state is a modern innovation and is a unique contribution of the late Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran to Islamic thought and practice.”[12]Furthermore, the Shia doctrine is understood to negate Islamic rule in the absence of the twelfth Imam. The formulation by Khomeini of Wilayat-ul-Faqih (intermediate rule of the jurist) is not considered to have overturned the Shia doctrine and turned Iran into an Islamic state in the absence of the Imam. Rather Iran is considered to have adopted the republican state model with an Islamic flavour. Such a model is rejected as having no precedent in Islam.[13]Many western academics have consequently been considered to have fallen into this trap. Fred Halliday in his book, Islam and the Myth of Confrontation accordingly premises his argument of Western universalism primarily on the assertion of measuring Islam in accordance with Iran and concluding the failure of Islam as a result.Democracy as understood from its Greek term demos (rule of the people) and kratos (rule by the people) is termed an anathema to Islam. Sovereignty to the people to legislate is considered a violation of God’s dominion and slavery to human flaw, desire and inconsistency. Man’s attempt to legislate is thus argued as contrary to human nature in that it rejects the attribute of religiousness and weakness in the management of human affairs. It is divine revelation not majority rule which Islam ascribes to the legislation or opinion being correct or incorrect.[14]Democracy is thus rejected as a defective expression of political structuring; incriminating also that the democratic experiment of human legislation actually conflicts with Liberal freedoms and is not its natural outcome. The idea that society’s interests are guaranteed through the personal interests of the individual is attacked as a contradiction between democracy and liberalism in that legislation by default restricts freedom and is in reality its antithesis. [15]Democracy is consequently portrayed as being intrinsically inconsistent and dangerous in its theoretical premise. The consent of rule by the many over the few is deemed as leading to an oppression of minorities which it expresses to protect.[16]Similarly, man’s innate impulse for self-interest is considered to have been exploited under a façade of democracy through the exploitation of economic freedom. It is cited as the cause of democracy’s vulnerability to control and abuse by the Capitalist class who are regarded as the real rulers through their influence of government within Western society. The adoption of democracy as a political experiment is considered to have done little to change the fundamental dynamics of the feudal period.[17]Islam’s alternate message of political organization is premised on the contract of governance between the elected rulers and the ruled via the authority of the people and the sovereignty of Sharia. The appointment of the leadership and the agreement on the divine system is cited as the necessary safeguard against the interference of self-interest in legislation and the danger of totalitarian rule by the rulers or other interested parties.[18]The charge of totalitarianism by the West against the Islamic state and system is rejected and furthermore turned against the West. Both Nazi Germany and Communism are highlighted as aberrations resulting from the inconsistencies and inadequacies of the Western thought and not Islam.[19]The West’s projection of its material advancement as an outcome of its intellectual, scientific and economic freedom is vehemently rejected and refuted. Islam regards science to be a universal phenomenon with no inherent link to any value systems, especially ridiculing the notion that technological advancement is inherently linked to adopting secular liberalism. It is pointed out that in the twentieth century alone, illiberal and totalitarian regimes such as Nazi Germany and Communist Russia led the West in terms of technological parity.[20]Having produced leading scientific thinkers and technological achievements, the history of Islamic civilisation is cited as having led the Western world for many centuries. The central role of the mind in the Islamic doctrine is alluded to as the underlying reason for the compatibility between Islam and science. Moreover, even the scientific method upon which the West built its industrial achievements is considered part of the heritage bequeathed by the Islamic civilisation, further undermining any necessary connection between scientific and technological advancement with the secular liberal message.Secular Liberalism’s unquestioned confidence in the individual is not shared by Islam or its conception of guaranteeing society’s interests through the fulfilment of the personal interests of the individual alone. The overwhelming material tendency within Western thought the individual, state and society is considered the cause of mankind’s perpetual misery under its message. [21]Under material domination, focus on the individual alone is viewed as the source of the endemic spiritual, ethical and humanitarian void confronting Western societies. Hence, the intended transfer of responsibility for governing society from the state to the individual is considered to further perpetuate the inevitable cause of societal despair and despondency.[22]Fukyama admits to this problem in secular liberalism but due to his mistake of understanding Islam through the conventional lens of the reformation and the war on terror, he finds no argument in religion or Islam.“One is inclined to say that the revival of religion in some way attests to a broad unhappiness with the impersonality and spiritual vacuity of liberal consumerist societies. Yet while the emptiness at the core of liberalism is most certainly a defect in the ideology- indeed, a flaw that one does not need the perspective of religion to recognise – it is not at all clear that it is remedial through politics.”[23]The void is not understood to be limited to the spiritual aspect. Premised on the idea of economic freedom, unbridled free market forces are not seen as a cause of elevation rather the control and exploitation of basic human sustenance by powerful commercial concerns with no room for the humanitarian values required to look after the old, destitute and disabled. The establishment of the welfare state in Western societies is attributed not to the secular liberal message but a political compromise intended to eliminate the pressure in exposing the considered inhumanity of the Smithsonian free market model. The rapid post Communist transformation in Western societies as regards state privatisation and destruction of the welfare state is highlighted as the reason for ending the political compromise and the free reign of unrestrained market forces on society.[24]The uninhibited consequence of the free market is also deemed responsible for Western colonialism. The impulse to exploit foreign lands under the justification of economic freedom, globalisation and free market principles, is thought to have become the unavoidable method for secular liberalism’s universal advance. This is deemed as the West’s global Achilles heel.[25]Islam is conceptualised as the only doctrine capable of fusing and organising the material tendency in society with the ethical, spiritual and humanitarian. Consequently, there is considered no such emptiness leading to tension within the individual and society. Constructing a powerful message in terms of preventing the exploitation and domination of society by the material tendency. It puts forward a model of fixed demarcation of responsibility between the state, society and the individual for protecting the life, mind, property, honour and the lineage of man. [26]Market principles are rejected as a means of guaranteeing what Islam considers as the basic human rights. The state in Islam and not the market is charged with the responsibility for guaranteeing food, shelter and clothing. The state is also deemed accountable for trusteeship and protection of key resources from private exploitation, including energy, minerals and water on behalf of the people.[27]The understanding of happiness as seeking the pleasure of God via the application of the Sharia system is proposed as the most effective means of guaranteeing the ethical, humanitarian and spiritual levels in society. The values embedded in the details of the system are considered to provide the responsibility for society to act as the first port of call for ensuring the care of the destitute, elderly, and poor and incapacitated. The state deemed responsible as the default guarantor.[28]Islam contends that it organises the values according to the divine Sharia and thus no value is preferred or allowed over the other. Colonialism is considered alien to it as the globalisation of the Islamic message is not driven by the materialist tendency and as such its application suffers no spiritual or ethical contradiction and vacuum.In terms of global structure, the Westphalian state system and the social contract between nation and state are demonstrated as the inability of the secular liberal doctrine to resolve the contradictory position of a unifying global message and the divisive bond of nationalism. The institutionalisation of the state upon national and ethnic edifice is considered the capitulation to the instinct of human survival and the primary cause for the continual conflict for national domination in the global theatre. The two devastating World Wars in the twentieth century and the rise of fascism and Nazism, provided as the principal victims of the Westphalian state concept.[29]Moreover, universal man is considered neither innately evil nor innately good. The propensity of universal man to be evil or good is dependent upon the correctness of the thought and its ability to organise the innate energies. Hence, the international order is not considered a mechanism of self preservation and survival unless the vital interests which sustain the entities within it are threatened.[30]Islam terms a bond based upon nationalism as divisive and destructive. Consequently, political and social organisation centred on the nationalist edifice is legally prohibited. Instead, Islam constitutes the idea of ‘ummah’ defined as a nation based upon the bond of ideology alone. The Caliphate is the expression of this political organisation in the global realm. Encompassing the call of Islam to universal man and the rejection of nationalism, the Caliphate is thus developed as naturally expansionist and unitary. In this manner Islam purports to overcome the problematique of nationalism and global message by re-organising the global state order.[31]
Conclusion
Secular liberalism and its Capitalist derivative has been largely promoted as a successful global message because of the wealth, technology and power acquired by the West as well as a system which purports to guarantee the human rights and dignity of man through the liberties and freedoms.However, the secular liberal doctrine and system have come under intense international scrutiny as regards their inability to resolve societal problems, global poverty and war. The West’s unremitting imperialist impulse and the ethical, humanitarian and spiritual crisis confronting Western liberal societies have sparked not only a response from the Islamic world but the explosion of a genuine global anti-Capitalist reaction.In defining Islam as an alternate global message with no co-existence, the Islamic thinkers and the movement have declared war on secular liberalism and challenged Western universalism. The construction of Islam as a global message has set off a revival throughout the Islamic world and positioned Islam as constituting the fastest growing phenomena in the Western world. With the globalisation of the War on Terror, Islam has indeed become an international concern affecting every hemisphere in the world beyond the ‘Arab man’.Russia’s ideological vacuum and system paralysis is compounded by the internal and external pressure she faces from the Islamic movement resulting from her close geographical proximity to the Islamic resurgence in Central Asia and the Caucuses. There is a strong argument to suggest that if the Islamic system had been operational in the form of the Caliphate when Communism collapsed, Russia would have indeed been and remains vulnerable to the Islamic message.China also having slowly diluted its Communist premise in favour of a Capitalist economic model has slowly begun to feel the tremors of inconsistency. In measuring its success through the barometer of technology and economics, the distributions of wealth and societal harmony guaranteed in some form under the Communist message is beginning to crack and rise to the surface. With the US on the march with its message, increased wealth and technology will only be temporary in the event of ideological, systemic and political poverty. Again having intellectually rejected complete Capitalism, China remains insular in its culture. However, Islam is a powerful part of China’s history and geography. With a large Muslim and radical Uighar population, borders with Afghanistan, Pakistan and Central Asia, the resumption of the Islamic message will have an immediate impact on China’s ideological conundrum.Europe is finding difficulty in coping with the radicalisation of its huge Muslim populations, forcing it to reassess its official neutrality towards Islam in the secular frame and nervousness over including Turkey officially as part of the EU. The failure and refusal of the Muslim populations to integrate further exposes the limits of the Liberal message in secularising Islam. Furthermore, due to the shadow of Islam still existent in the ‘European man’ such as in Spain, the Balkans and Central Europe, the Islamic message will find its natural and strongest allies in the event of a future Caliphate resuming the conquest of the message through Europe.In the Americas, the rapid growth of Islam is fed by a wave of anti-Americanism. The poverty of the Americas has become a source of shame and failure for the export of the American dream and consequently the disappointment of the Capitalist message. Moreover, despite the official decolonisation, the America’s and Africa remain the victims of economic and political conditions resulting from the exploitation of global Capitalism.As for the Islamic world, the secular message has been destroyed by the messenger itself. The invasion of Iraq, indifference towards Israel, political and economic relationships with dictators, the military presence to secure oil and the perceived war on Islam under the pretext of fighting terrorism has strengthened the call of the Islamic movement. The Koran remains the driving force in the revival of the Islamic message and the shield against the secular liberal message.All of the above now presents a ready made battlefield for Islam’s quest for universalism. The conflict now rages in the Islamic world to transform itself from a stateless phenomenon into a Caliphate in order to practically display its message in the global theatre with the aim of attracting universal man.
Noman Hanif is lecturer in Political Islam and International Terrorism at Birkbeck, University of London and Fellow in Middle East Politics at the University of Exeter, UK
Notes
[1] Francis Fukyama, The End of History, The National Interest, 1989.[2] Booth K, Dunne T, Introduction, Worlds in Collision, Terror and the Future of Global Order, Palgrave Macmillan 2002 pp1-26[3]Huntington S, The Clash of Civilisations, Simon&Schuster, 1996, pp178-179[4] Suha Taji Farouki’s book ‘Hizbal Tahrir and the Quest for the Caliphate’ is the only serious academic work to date on HT. A copy of HT’s draft constitution is printed in the book.[5] Nabahani, The Way to Belief, The System of Islam, chapter 1, date and author unknown. HT works can be located on the website (www.hizb-ut-tahrir.org). The chapter discusses the intellectual foundations of the Islamic doctrine.[6] Ibid, chapter 3[7] Ibid, chapter 1[8] ibid, chapter 3[9] Baqir As Sadr, Our Philosophy, Routledge &Kegan Paul, 1987, pp21-31. The introduction of the book is heavily influenced by Nabahani in its explanation of the ideological divide.[10] Nabahani, Intellectual Leadership, System of Islam, chapter 3[11] Bernard Lewis, The Crisis of Islam, Weidenfeld &Nicolson, 2003, p8[12] ibid p15[13] This argument is put forward by Hizb-ut-Tahrir in a leaflet (reprinted in its English publication, Al Fajr, 1989) denouncing Khomeini after his refusal to implement the Islamic constitution put forward by HT.[14] Nabahani, Intellectual Leadership, System of Islam, chapter 3.[15] Baqir As Sadr, Our Philosophy, Routledge &Kegan Paul, 1987, pp21-31[16] Ibid[17] ibid[18] Nabahani, Intellectual Leadership, System of Islam chapter 3. A detailed breakdown is provided in Nabahani’s book The Ruling System in Islam (www.hizb-ut-Tahrir.org)[19] Nabahani, Political Concepts of Hizb-ut-Tahrir[20] Nabahani, Culture and Civilisation, The System of Islam, chapter 5.[21] Baqir As Sadr, The Tragedies of the Capitalist System, Our Philosophy, pp11-14[22] Ibid[23] Francis Fukyama, The End of History, The National Interest, 1989.[24] Baqir as Sadr, The Tragedies of the Capitalist System, Our Philosophy, pp11-14. The detailed critique of Capitalist economics can be found in Sadr’s book Our Economy.[25] Nabahani, Intellectual Leadership, System of Islam, chapter 3. A political conception of Capitalism’s relationship to colonialism is provided in the book ‘The Political Concepts of Hizb-ut-Tahrir’.[26] Ibid[27] Nabahani, Introduction to Economy, The Difference between Capitalist, Communist and Islamic Economics, (www.Hizb-ut-Tahrir.org)[28] Nabahani, Concepts of Hizb-ut-Tahrir, ( www.Hizb-ut-Tahrir.org)[29] Nabahani, Political Concepts of Hizb-ut-Tahrir (http://www.hizb-ut-tahrir.org/) The basic conception of nationalism as a divisive force is argued in The System of Islam[30] Ibid[31] Ibid
Thursday 31 May 2007
Tuesday 29 May 2007
The Labour Pary has left Britain more divided and segregated
Hello,
An excellent piece, shedding light on the contribution of the Labour party to the problems facing British society, such as segregation, division, racism, balkanization and Islamophabia. This is a far cry from the blame which has been directed towards the Muslim community post 7/7- for the listed problems. Political and media spin has run overdrive under Labour!!
A decade of Blair has left society more segregated, fearful and divided
He could have played midwife to a confident, inclusive, hybrid sense of Britishness, but sought to strangle it at birth Just a few days before Labour swept to power in 1997, Tony Blair was visiting a health centre in Brentford when a Sikh man approached him and asked: "What about us Asians?" Had Blair stopped to listen, as my colleague Jonathan Freedland did, he would have learned that the man was concerned about a possible EU directive that would have stopped him from wearing his turban under his motorbike helmet. If ever there was an ideal opportunity to triangulate, this was it. So long as the turban did not violate British safety laws, why should the EU interfere? With racial sensitivity he nods to the left, with a well-placed jab at Europe he nods to the right. But Blair had an entirely different audience in mind. "You're part of Britain," he snapped. "We'll treat you the same as everyone else."
Racial and ethnic diversity has always been less of a problem for most of Britain than it has for Blair. What most of us long regarded as a source of cultural strength, the New Labour leadership has always deemed an electoral weakness. Driven by crude majoritarian impulses, this government has not only refused to lead a more hopeful, progressive national conversation about race, it has refused to even follow the one that was available.
Margaret Hodge's comments last week followed by Ofcom's rebuke of Channel 4 for its code breaches in Big Brother illustrate just how far New Labour had sunk. Presented with the racist views voiced by Jade Goody, our popular culture pilloried them while our political culture panders to them.
The polarising effects of terrorism and war accelerated the regression to atavistic notions of Britishness and race. But they didn't start it. As Blair leaves office he has the curious distinction of having realigned the level of public racial discourse with his own - by lowering it. This was no accident. The pressure came not from voters but within New Labour, which for all its bravado was always an essentially defensive project. Emerging from 18 years of electoral defeat, it identified itself not by what it could be but by what it would no longer be - namely old Labour. Race and immigration were regarded as achille's heels of the old.
But while the spin doctors were still working from a playbook written in the 70s, the rest of the country had moved on. Thanks primarily to demographic drift and cultural engagement, the number of those willing or able to imagine Britain without non-white people had dwindled. Labour's first term saw Chris Ofili and Steve McQueen win the Turner Prize, White Teeth win the Whitbread, Ali G emerge as a comic force, and the number of non-white MPs double.
The issues of race (the colour of people) and immigration (the movement of people) were decoupling. Britishness was losing its synonymity with whiteness and its antithesis to blackness. Racism had not disappeared; but it was no longer the electorally potent force it had once been either. In 1997, the BNP had no council seats. According to a Mori poll six weeks before the election, the country ranked race and immigration the 12th most important issue - just below inflation and above BSE.
So from the outset, the potential existed for New Labour to play midwife to a confident, inclusive, hybrid sense of Britishness. Instead, it sought to strangle it at birth. Less than a month before polling day, Peter Mandelson unleashed Fitz the bulldog on to a party political broadcast. "The Labour party is the patriotic party," he explained. "[The bulldog] is an animal with a strong sense of history and tradition. The bulldog is a metaphor for Britain." For a party seeking to present itself as a modernising force, this was a curious choice of metaphor. The bulldog signified the land of John Bull and empire, not Kelly Holmes and Little Britain.
Shortly before the last election, Blair promised tougher asylum and immigration legislation against the backdrop of the white cliffs of Dover. Had he stood again, we might well have witnessed a walkabout down the Old Kent Road flanked by a Pearly King and Queen to the soundtrack of Chas and Dave. These anachronistic symbols belied chequered legislative and political achievements. The Stephen Lawrence inquiry, the resultant Macpherson report and the Race Relations (Amendment) Act were particularly high watermarks; the asylum bill, ID cards and loyalty pledges were particularly low.
New Labour understood that racism was bad; it just never quite grasped that anti-racism was good. Progressive initiatives were overshadowed and undermined by crude rhetoric. In the days following Le Pen's election success, David Blunkett echoed Thatcher's fears of being "swamped" by non-English speaking immigrants; Ruth Kelly spoke up for "white Britons [who] see the shops and restaurants in their town centres changing [and] do not feel comfortable". Peter Hain blamed "a minority of [isolationist] Muslims for [leaving themselves] open to targeting by racists and Nazis".
Over the decade, the ethnicity of the scapegoated "other" kept changing. At different moments the focus shifted from asylum seekers to Gypsies to Muslims to eastern Europeans. The basis for the fear changed too: from drugs to jihad, from race to religion, from crime to culture. Often the scapegoats were in fact white. Indeed, the only thing that has remained constant was the need for an "other".
As ever, this "other" was most useful in helping the powerful define themselves. In a period of globalisation, devolution and post-colonial decline, defining contemporary Britishness went from parlour game to profitable industry. Those most keen to define us were most likely to violate the principles by which they defined us. Even as they shot innocent young men on the tube and at home, or tortured them abroad, they told us we were a "tolerant", "welcoming", "law-abiding people", who championed "fair play". "Liberals" who once argued for integration now demanded assimilation; those who had called for assimilation now made the case for exclusion. Debates about race became a race to the bottom.
None of this denies the daunting challenges this government has faced. Immigration has escalated massively and there are finite public resources. The trouble is that New Labour contributed in no small part to these developments. Specifically, it backed EU expansion - a good move, but with consequences and clearly without adequate preparation. More generally, the neoliberal policies it has supported at home and abroad created a vulnerable low-paid workforce that feels threatened by those seeking asylum from poverty and war.
Which brings us to Iraq, where Blair helped create far more asylum seekers than he ever took in. The overwhelming majority of Britons opposed the war and terrorism. We have ended up with both - expanding the market for Islamophobia and jihad, and returning the myth of the west's civilising mission to an ever degrading public discussion.
And so it was that as Blair's term draws to a close, the popular proved too weak to resist the reactionary overtures of the political. Race and immigration are now key issues facing the nation, and the BNP has 56 councillors. Schools are more segregated, and society more fearful and divided. Popular culture took Jade Goody down. But the politicians who embrace her agenda have risen to new depths.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2089683,00.html
An excellent piece, shedding light on the contribution of the Labour party to the problems facing British society, such as segregation, division, racism, balkanization and Islamophabia. This is a far cry from the blame which has been directed towards the Muslim community post 7/7- for the listed problems. Political and media spin has run overdrive under Labour!!
A decade of Blair has left society more segregated, fearful and divided
He could have played midwife to a confident, inclusive, hybrid sense of Britishness, but sought to strangle it at birth Just a few days before Labour swept to power in 1997, Tony Blair was visiting a health centre in Brentford when a Sikh man approached him and asked: "What about us Asians?" Had Blair stopped to listen, as my colleague Jonathan Freedland did, he would have learned that the man was concerned about a possible EU directive that would have stopped him from wearing his turban under his motorbike helmet. If ever there was an ideal opportunity to triangulate, this was it. So long as the turban did not violate British safety laws, why should the EU interfere? With racial sensitivity he nods to the left, with a well-placed jab at Europe he nods to the right. But Blair had an entirely different audience in mind. "You're part of Britain," he snapped. "We'll treat you the same as everyone else."
Racial and ethnic diversity has always been less of a problem for most of Britain than it has for Blair. What most of us long regarded as a source of cultural strength, the New Labour leadership has always deemed an electoral weakness. Driven by crude majoritarian impulses, this government has not only refused to lead a more hopeful, progressive national conversation about race, it has refused to even follow the one that was available.
Margaret Hodge's comments last week followed by Ofcom's rebuke of Channel 4 for its code breaches in Big Brother illustrate just how far New Labour had sunk. Presented with the racist views voiced by Jade Goody, our popular culture pilloried them while our political culture panders to them.
The polarising effects of terrorism and war accelerated the regression to atavistic notions of Britishness and race. But they didn't start it. As Blair leaves office he has the curious distinction of having realigned the level of public racial discourse with his own - by lowering it. This was no accident. The pressure came not from voters but within New Labour, which for all its bravado was always an essentially defensive project. Emerging from 18 years of electoral defeat, it identified itself not by what it could be but by what it would no longer be - namely old Labour. Race and immigration were regarded as achille's heels of the old.
But while the spin doctors were still working from a playbook written in the 70s, the rest of the country had moved on. Thanks primarily to demographic drift and cultural engagement, the number of those willing or able to imagine Britain without non-white people had dwindled. Labour's first term saw Chris Ofili and Steve McQueen win the Turner Prize, White Teeth win the Whitbread, Ali G emerge as a comic force, and the number of non-white MPs double.
The issues of race (the colour of people) and immigration (the movement of people) were decoupling. Britishness was losing its synonymity with whiteness and its antithesis to blackness. Racism had not disappeared; but it was no longer the electorally potent force it had once been either. In 1997, the BNP had no council seats. According to a Mori poll six weeks before the election, the country ranked race and immigration the 12th most important issue - just below inflation and above BSE.
So from the outset, the potential existed for New Labour to play midwife to a confident, inclusive, hybrid sense of Britishness. Instead, it sought to strangle it at birth. Less than a month before polling day, Peter Mandelson unleashed Fitz the bulldog on to a party political broadcast. "The Labour party is the patriotic party," he explained. "[The bulldog] is an animal with a strong sense of history and tradition. The bulldog is a metaphor for Britain." For a party seeking to present itself as a modernising force, this was a curious choice of metaphor. The bulldog signified the land of John Bull and empire, not Kelly Holmes and Little Britain.
Shortly before the last election, Blair promised tougher asylum and immigration legislation against the backdrop of the white cliffs of Dover. Had he stood again, we might well have witnessed a walkabout down the Old Kent Road flanked by a Pearly King and Queen to the soundtrack of Chas and Dave. These anachronistic symbols belied chequered legislative and political achievements. The Stephen Lawrence inquiry, the resultant Macpherson report and the Race Relations (Amendment) Act were particularly high watermarks; the asylum bill, ID cards and loyalty pledges were particularly low.
New Labour understood that racism was bad; it just never quite grasped that anti-racism was good. Progressive initiatives were overshadowed and undermined by crude rhetoric. In the days following Le Pen's election success, David Blunkett echoed Thatcher's fears of being "swamped" by non-English speaking immigrants; Ruth Kelly spoke up for "white Britons [who] see the shops and restaurants in their town centres changing [and] do not feel comfortable". Peter Hain blamed "a minority of [isolationist] Muslims for [leaving themselves] open to targeting by racists and Nazis".
Over the decade, the ethnicity of the scapegoated "other" kept changing. At different moments the focus shifted from asylum seekers to Gypsies to Muslims to eastern Europeans. The basis for the fear changed too: from drugs to jihad, from race to religion, from crime to culture. Often the scapegoats were in fact white. Indeed, the only thing that has remained constant was the need for an "other".
As ever, this "other" was most useful in helping the powerful define themselves. In a period of globalisation, devolution and post-colonial decline, defining contemporary Britishness went from parlour game to profitable industry. Those most keen to define us were most likely to violate the principles by which they defined us. Even as they shot innocent young men on the tube and at home, or tortured them abroad, they told us we were a "tolerant", "welcoming", "law-abiding people", who championed "fair play". "Liberals" who once argued for integration now demanded assimilation; those who had called for assimilation now made the case for exclusion. Debates about race became a race to the bottom.
None of this denies the daunting challenges this government has faced. Immigration has escalated massively and there are finite public resources. The trouble is that New Labour contributed in no small part to these developments. Specifically, it backed EU expansion - a good move, but with consequences and clearly without adequate preparation. More generally, the neoliberal policies it has supported at home and abroad created a vulnerable low-paid workforce that feels threatened by those seeking asylum from poverty and war.
Which brings us to Iraq, where Blair helped create far more asylum seekers than he ever took in. The overwhelming majority of Britons opposed the war and terrorism. We have ended up with both - expanding the market for Islamophobia and jihad, and returning the myth of the west's civilising mission to an ever degrading public discussion.
And so it was that as Blair's term draws to a close, the popular proved too weak to resist the reactionary overtures of the political. Race and immigration are now key issues facing the nation, and the BNP has 56 councillors. Schools are more segregated, and society more fearful and divided. Popular culture took Jade Goody down. But the politicians who embrace her agenda have risen to new depths.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2089683,00.html
Changing Political trends in the Muslim World
Hello,
A recent polll covering a number of subjects, indicating the attitudes and opinions of Muslims in 4 leading Muslim countries- Egypt, Pakistan, Morocco and Indonesia. Very interesting findings, click on the links below
Subjects covered are:
-America's objectives in the Middle East/Muslim world
-Use of violence against civilians
-Spread of American values/military presence
-Implementation of Sharee'ah
The press release, headline figures
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/346.php?nid=&id=&pnt=346&lb=hmpg2
The full questionnaire responses
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/apr07/START_Apr07_quaire.pdf
In-depth report/analysis of responses
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/apr07/START_Apr07_rpt.pdf
A recent polll covering a number of subjects, indicating the attitudes and opinions of Muslims in 4 leading Muslim countries- Egypt, Pakistan, Morocco and Indonesia. Very interesting findings, click on the links below
Subjects covered are:
-America's objectives in the Middle East/Muslim world
-Use of violence against civilians
-Spread of American values/military presence
-Implementation of Sharee'ah
The press release, headline figures
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/346.php?nid=&id=&pnt=346&lb=hmpg2
The full questionnaire responses
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/apr07/START_Apr07_quaire.pdf
In-depth report/analysis of responses
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/apr07/START_Apr07_rpt.pdf
The Link between Foreign Policy and Terrorism
The British government has insisted on its claim that its foreign policy has had no impact upon anger and violence. Instead, Tony Blair has adopted the neo-conservative mantra that it is Islam that is the problem. The below key intelligence reports and political statements conclusively prove that the foreign policy of western governments perpetuate violence . UK MoD Defence Academy In September 2006, it was revealed that a research paper prepared for the Ministry of Defence's Defence Academy stated that: "The war in Iraq...has acted as a recruiting sergeant for extremists across the Muslim world…Iraq has served to radicalise an already disillusioned youth and al-Qaeda has given them the will, intent, purpose and ideology to act." Senior Cabinet memo A leaked memo by senior UK Cabinet officials demands a "significant reduction in the number and intensity of the regional conflicts that fuel terror activity". The memo also suggests that in an ideal world "the Muslim would not perceive the UK and its foreign policies as hostile". Sir Richard Dannatt [Head of the British Army] In an interview with the Daily Mail, Sir Richard Dannatt, Head of the British Army, said that the presence of UK armed forces in Iraq "exacerbates the security problems" and they should "get out some time soon". Chatham House A report in July 2005 by Chatham House, the respected thinktank on foreign affairs, concluded that there was "no doubt" that the invasion of Iraq had "given a boost to the al-Qaida network" in "propaganda, recruitment and fundraising", while providing an ideal targeting and training area for terrorists. "Riding pillion with a powerful ally has proved costly in terms of British and US military lives, Iraqi lives, military expenditure and the damage caused to the counter-terrorism campaign." JTAC assessment On 19 July 2005, the New York Times published extracts from an assessment, drawn up in mid-June 2005, by the UK’s Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre (JTAC). The most striking sentence in these extracts was: “Events in Iraq are continuing to act as motivation and a focus of a range of terrorist related activity in the UK” JIC assessment In April 2005, a report drawn up by the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) was even more explicit about the motivating effect of the invasion of Iraq. It was entitled International Terrorism: Impact of Iraq. The following extracts from it were published in The Sunday Times on 2 April 2006: “It [the invasion of Iraq] has reinforced the determination of terrorists who were already committed to attacking the West and motivated others who were not.” “Iraq is likely to be an important motivating factor for some time to come in the radicalisation of British Muslims and for those extremists who view attacks against the UK as legitimate.” “There is a clear consensus within the UK extremist community that Iraq is a legitimate jihad and should be supported. Iraq has re-energised and refocused a wide range of networks in the UK.” “We judge that the conflict in Iraq has exacerbated the threat from international terrorism and will continue to have an impact in the long term. It has reinforced the determination of terrorists who were already committed to attacking the West and motivated others who were not.” Young Muslims and Extremism Report A 2004 joint Home Office and Foreign Office dossier prepared for Tony Blair - 'Young Muslims and Extremism' - identified the Iraq war as a key cause of young Britons turning to terrorism. The analysis stated: "It seems that a particularly strong cause of disillusionment among Muslims, including young Muslims, is a perceived 'double standard' in the foreign policy of western governments, in particular Britain and the US." "The perception is that passive 'oppression', as demonstrated in British foreign policy, eg non-action on Kashmir and Chechnya, has given way to 'active oppression'. The war on terror, and in Iraq and Afghanistan, are all seen by a section of British Muslims as having been acts against Islam." (Robert Winnett and David Leppard, 'Terror in London, Leaked No 10 dossier reveals Al-Qaeda's British recruits,' The Sunday Times, July 10, 2005) MI5 assessment [UK Security Service] The MI5 website states, “In recent years, Iraq has become a dominant issue for a range of extremist groups and individuals in the UK and Europe.” ISC assessment The intelligence services warned the UK government, prior to the invasion of Iraq, that military action against Iraq would increase the threat of terrorism to Britain. The Intelligence & Security Committee (ISC) report published on 11 September 2003, quoted a JIC assessment, entitled International Terrorism: War with Iraq, dated 10 February 2003: “The JIC assessed that al-Qaida and associated groups continued to represent by far the greatest terrorist threat to Western interests, and that threat would be heightened by military action against Iraq.” (ISC report, Paragraph 126) US National Intelligence Estimate On 24 September 2006, The New York Times published an article, entitled Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terror Threat. It was about a US National Intelligence Estimate entitled Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States, which was completed in April 2006. National Intelligence Estimates are formal assessments on specific national security issues, signed off by the Director of National Intelligence, John Negroponte. They express the consensus view of the 16 US spy agencies, based on raw intelligence supplied by all of them. This Estimate is the first formal appraisal of “global terrorism” by United States intelligence agencies since the Iraq war began. In an effort to undo the damage done by this leak, President Bush has declassified and published the “key judgments” in the Estimate. But the “key judgments” merely validate the headline on The New York Times article: “We assess that the Iraq jihad is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives; perceived jihadist success there would inspire more fighters to continue the struggle elsewhere." "The Iraq conflict has become the “cause celebre” for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement." "Four underlying factors are fuelling the spread of the jihadist movement: (1) Entrenched grievances, such as corruption, injustice, and fear of Western domination, leading to anger, humiliation, and a sense of powerlessness; (2) the Iraq “jihad”; (3) the slow pace of real and sustained economic, social, and political reforms in many Muslim majority nations; and (4) pervasive anti-US sentiment among most Muslims - all of which jihadists exploit.” Former Italian PM Silvio Berlusconi A few days after the July 2005 London bombings, the former Italian PM Berlusconi, said, "Even intelligence from other countries shows the three Bs—Bush, Berlusconi and Blair—are considered the most exposed to this type of risk." Michael Scheuer – First head of CIA Al-Qaida desk Michael Scheuer, worked for the CIA for 22 years, and was the first head of its al-Qaida desk, serving in this capacity for two years. While still working for the CIA, he wrote a book entitled Imperial Hubris: Why the West is losing the War on Terror, which was published in 2004. His view, as summarised in this book, is as follows: “… the greatest danger for Americans confronting the radical Islamist threat is to believe – at the urging of US leaders – that Muslims attack us for what we are and what we think rather than for what we do. “Rhetorical political blustering ‘informs’ the public that Islamists are offended by the Western world’s democratic freedoms, civil liberties, intermingling of genders, and separation of church and state. However, although aspects of the modern world may offend conservative Muslims, no Islamist leader has, for example, fomented jihad in order to destroy participatory democracy, the national association of credit unions, or coed universities. … “Al-Qaida’s public statements condemn America’s protection of corrupt Muslim regimes, unqualified support for Israel, the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, and a further litany of real-world grievances. Bin Laden’s supporters thus identify their problem and believe its solution lies in war. “[Scheuer] contends they will go to any length, not to destroy our secular, democratic way of life, but to deter what they view as specific attacks on their lands, their communities and their religion. Unless US leaders recognize this fact and adjust their policies abroad accordingly, even moderate Muslims will be radicalized into supporting bin Laden’s anti-Western offensive.” US Defense Science Board The US Defense Science Board, which exists to provide independent advice to the US Secretary of Defense, produced a report in September 2004. The report is on Strategic Communications, that is, the means whereby the US gets its message to the world. It concludes bluntly that communicating with the Muslim world is impossible at the present time: “Thus the critical problem in American public diplomacy directed toward the Muslim World is not one of ‘dissemination of information’, or even one of crafting and delivering the ‘right’ message. Rather, it is a fundamental problem of credibility. Simply, there is none – the United States today is without a working channel of communication to the world of Muslims and of Islam.” (page 41) And, according to the report, the US is not believed because of its policy towards the Muslim world, and the problem has got much worse since the US invasion of Iraq: “American direct intervention in the Muslim World has paradoxically elevated the stature of and support for radical Islamists, while diminishing support for the United States to single-digits in some Arab societies. “Muslims do not ‘hate our freedom’, but rather, they hate our policies. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the longstanding, even increasing support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan, and the Gulf states. “Thus when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy. Moreover, saying that ‘freedom is the future of the Middle East’ is seen as patronizing, suggesting that Arabs are like the enslaved peoples of the old Communist World — but Muslims do not feel this way: they feel oppressed, but not enslaved. “Furthermore, in the eyes of Muslims, American occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has not led to democracy there, but only more chaos and suffering. U.S. actions appear in contrast to be motivated by ulterior motives, and deliberately controlled in order to best serve American national interests at the expense of truly Muslim self-determination. “Therefore, the dramatic narrative since 9/11 has essentially borne out the entire radical Islamist bill of particulars. American actions and the flow of events have elevated the authority of the Jihadi insurgents and tended to ratify their legitimacy among Muslims. Fighting groups portray themselves as the true defenders of an Ummah (the entire Muslim community) invaded and under attack — to broad public support. “What was a marginal network is now an Ummah-wide movement of fighting groups. Not only has there been a proliferation of ‘terrorist’ groups: the unifying context of a shared cause creates a sense of affiliation across the many cultural and sectarian boundaries that divide Islam.” (pages 40-41) Kenneth Clarke MP [former Chancellor of the Exchequer] Prior to the invasion of Iraq, many opponents of the action warned that it would give a stimulus to al-Qaida and associated groups. For example, speaking in a debate in the House of Commons on 26 February 2003, Kenneth Clarke said: “The next time a large bomb explodes in a western city, or an Arab or Muslim regime topples and is replaced by extremists, the Government must consider the extent to which their policy contributed to it. That is why hon. Members should pause and why, unless evidence is produced for a breach and a material threat, my judgment today is that we should not go to war.” Ken Livingstone [Mayor of London] "An assault on Iraq will inflame world opinion and jeopardise security and peace everywhere. London, as one of the major world cities, has a great deal to lose from war and a lot to gain from peace, international cooperation and global stability." (quoted by Tariq Ali in The Guardian on 8 July 2005)
Re-visiting Orientalism and the Muslim world
'The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the public alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary' (H.L. Mencken, 1923)The BBC documentary 'The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear' aired in the United Kingdom during November 2004 was a fascinating insight into the rise of fear as a political tool and source of manipulation. According to the documentary, the failure of American liberalism during the 1960s and 1970sand decreasing American state legitimacy drove the search for new avenues to restore power and authority. Instead of delivering dreams, politicians began to promise protection from nightmares in order to derive much-needed legitimacy. In the past, the Soviet Union was labelled as the nightmare to be fought against through state knowledge and power. Post September 11th, a new nightmare shaping fear and driving US foreign policy emerged packaged in the form of 'Islamic Fundamentalism'. The need to fight 'Islamic fundamentalists' for the sake of national security and world peace has become a predominant preoccupation.What has become increasingly apparent, however, is that certain intellectual perspectives towards Islam and the Middle East are driving the discourse.
After a subdued role in the public arena during the 1990s, Orientalist perspectives of Islam and the Middle East have re-surfaced, contributing to the construction of another perceived nightmare from which people need rescuing and saving.Orientalism: Study and ApproachAccording to the Oxford English dictionary (1971), the word Orientalism was generally used in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries to refer to the work of the Orientalist, a scholar versed in the languages and literatures of the Orient (Macfie, 2002). Toward the end of the eighteenth and the first quarter of the nineteenth centuries, the word began to acquire and reflect an alternative meaning, which coincided with British colonial rule and governance in India. Orientalism in the British tradition was used to refer to or identify a 'conservative and romantic' approach to the problems of government, faced by the officials of the East India Company in India (Mackenzie, 1995). This understanding and perception of Orientalism dominated minds and official political thinking during the epoch mentioned and was viewed as providing a much needed insight into the culture, behaviour, traits and mannerisms of the Orient, so that the Occident could attain a better understanding of far-off societies and civilisations. This rather abstract approach and study towards the Orient came into question during the period of de-colonisation that followed the end of the Second World War (1939-1945). Previously considered a neutral discipline, Orientalism began to attract suspicions of cynicism and subjectivity in its approach towards the Orient. This new attitude towards Orientalism turned this approach into a fiercely contested word within the world of academia. After recognition as a scholarly tradition, concerned with the study of the Orient, its approach was now found to be rather biased, touching upon negativism - some even suggested a hint of racism - as it consistently concluded that non-western civilisations (Orient) were inferior and mediocre in contrast to the superior and more advanced Occident (Sardar, 1999). More specifically, the culpability for this inferiority and backwardness was placed upon Oriental cultures and values. According to Orientalism, these values had effectively chained and subdued societies, preventing them from progressing and engaging in the process that drove the 'Enlightenment' and Reformation in the Occident, which consequentially gave birth to capitalism and the liberal ideology, laying the foundation for the scientific and industrial revolutions that followed (Said, 1978). In essence, according to the Orientalist perspective, the internal configuration and orientation of such societies was the underlying dominant causation behind their deterioration and decline (Roy, 1994).Scholars such as Anouan Abdel Malek, an Egyptian sociologist, Abdul Latif. Tibawi, a Palestinian scholar of Arab history, Bryan S. Turner, a leading English sociologist and Edward W. Said have provided scholarly critique of Orientalism, associating it with imperialism. Edward Said's book 'Orientalism' exposed the inherent perceived prejudices towards Arabs and Muslims in the works of leading writers and intellectuals who would class themselves as Orientalists. He argued that the portrayal of the Orient in novels and other published material in Europe and America was intended to provide the legitimacy for colonialism. This line of argument was reinforced in Said's later books, such as 'Culture and Imperialism' and 'Covering Islam' (Othman, 2003). However, this refutation of Orientalism did not go unchallenged, with Orientalists launching a defence of their approach against the aforementioned academics. Rather than delving into the numerous arguments posed by the advocates and opponents of Orientalism, my article aims to provide an insight into the re-emergence of Orientalist perceptions of the Middle East post-9/11. I also intend to provide an intellectual framework for a constructive discussion and debate about the way forward for the Middle East from the predicament it is in today. Problems exist in all states, whether the problems are related to social relations, economics, or politics and the Middle East is no exception; it deserves objective analysis, approach and study in order to understand the truth of the situation.The Orient re-visitedThe Middle East has been an important centre of colonial struggle and conflicting interests due to its economic riches and strategic geographical position. Media focus and coverage of the Middle East has been intense in the last few years, which is not surprising given that the region has become the centre for the American led War on Terror and the drive for democratisation which has been articulated as a foreign policy objective by Bush administration. As a result of the aggressive neo-conservative foreign policy, debate about the root causes of 'Islamic terrorism', the socio-economic failings of the region and the political future of the Middle East has come to the fore. This debate amongst western thinkers and policy makers is remarkable and a major turn around, given that prior to the 1990s, the Middle East was seen as beyond hope of change and reform, unlike other regions around the world, coinciding with Samuel Huntington's 'Third Wave' of democratisation (1991). The term 'Middle Eastern Exceptionalism' was coined to infer the apparently inherent inability of the region to engage in any substantial political engineering in order to re-orient its stagnant political infrastructures. The seminal work on political reform and change by Diamond et al during the 1980s excluded the Middle East, further reinforcing the repuation of the region as a political anomaly. During the 1980s, academics such as Elie Kedourie, Bernard Lewis and Fuad Ajami related this peculiarity of the region to intrinsic cultural issues, emphasising traditional Orientalist arguments about the backwardness of the Orient. They pointed out a number of factors that they believed contributed to the backwardness and stagnation of Middle Eastern societies; issues such as the absence of civil society, the Arab psyche, praetorianism and the domination of patriarchy within Arab political systems. A number of issues emerged which the Orientalists perceived as root causes of backwardness in the Middle East, but significantly they connected the above-mentioned factors to the institutional role Islam has played in Middle Eastern societies. Islam developed, according to them, a political culture and mindset of entrenched gender polarisation and passivity, which resulted in social imbalance and consequently led to a downward spiral of backwardness (Kedourie, 1992). This particular reading of the Middle East was dominant during the 1980s, but with the end of Communism, alternative perspectives and theses emerged concerning the Middle East, which did not propound such a negative picture concerning prospects of reform. The field of Middle Eastern Studies gained further diversity in addition to the Saidian school of thought (named thus because it followed from the approach of Edward Said) and put Orientalist negativism on the back foot. Despite this intellectual diversity in relation to the study of the Middle East, the old commentaries have returned to the fore post-9/11, providing a regurgitation of old ill-conceived perceptions of the Middle East. The skewed commentaries provided by the Orientalists have been instrumental in shaping public mindsets and thinking towards the Middle East.Contemporary societies in the Middle East have been under sustained attack for their lack of democracy, discrimination against religious minorities and the inferior legal status of women. The Orientalist dogma of negativism, subjectivity and perceiving the 'other' has resurfaced, providing justification for America to project its power and to utilise violence to liberate the backward Middle East from dictatorial and autocratic political systems. Bernard Lewis, described as 'the doyen of Middle East Studies', has penetrated Bush's Pentagon and National Security Council and has been instrumental in helping the likes of Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld develop their understanding of the causes of the problems in the Middle East and the potential correctives (Alam, 2002). Secular democracy is presented by Lewis as a cure for the ills of the region, requiring hard power in order to institutionalise secular models of governance. A decisive show of American strength in the Arab world is needed to take the offensive in the region and rid it of despotism. He was among the earliest voices in the aftermath of 9/11 to press for confrontation with Iraq, expressing his thoughts in a series of pieces in the Wall Street Journal with titles like 'A War of Resolve' and 'Time for Toppling' (Hirsh, 2004). Lewis is not alone; a fleet of able lieutenants, such as Raphael Patai, Thomas Friedman, Daniel Pipes and Martin Kramer have all made ample contributions. Martin Kramer's book, 'Ivory Towers on Sand: The failure of Middle Eastern Studies in America'(2002), launches a scathing attack upon the present status of scholarship in the field in America, considering it too apologetic and failing in its duty to inform policy makers of the real issues concerning Islam and the Middle East.Twenty seven years after the publication of Edward Said's 'Orientalism', in which he highlighted the intentions, assumptions, modalities and negativity of the Orientalist approach, there is a dire need for an objective and thoughtful discourse about the Middle East that excluding bias and prejudices. We can agree with Orientalism's criticisms of the authoritarianism, moribund political systems, economic retardation and the oppression that women face in the region. I hope to discuss in the following sections of the article what factors, or factions, are to blame for such problems, in order to widen the parameters of blame and criticism.Who or what is to blame?Put simply, the Orientalists consider the Islamic culture to be fundamentally responsible for the political, economic and social failure of the Middle East, in the past and in the contemporary era. In his aforementioned book What Went Wrong? Western impact and Middle Eastern response, Bernard Lewis identifies the Islamic culture as a key cause of the malaise that pervades the Middle East today. He argues that the absence of clearly defined secular parameters are an instrumental factor in the region's modernity deficit. According to Lewis secularism, recognising the separation of church and state "is, in a profound sense, Christian", as the Christian injunction to give God and Caesar each their due laid the framework for the evolution and development of modern western societies. Western secularism is therefore inherently Christian due to the presence of this religious precept in Christian theology. Prior to the enlightenment era the Church had transgressed against Christianity and imposed itself upon society. Progressively increasing its power, it used the state to eliminate or marginalise competing religions; it gained the right to define all religious dogma and rituals; it acquired properties, privileges and exclusive control over education; it expanded its legislative control over different spheres of society (Alam, 2002). This was the predicament of Europe during Medievalism and a crucial factor, according to Lewis, in the failings of Europe until the separation of Church and state, first seen in the French revolution, heralded a new era of progress and modernisation. Consequently Lewis identifies the role of Islam in the political domain as a key source of backwardness.The Orientalists fail to understand the deterioration of the Middle East when they view the region through the lens of European history. A number of factors formed the environment within which Europe underwent political change, heralding the emergence of secular political systems. Abuses such as simony, nepotism and financial excess were frequent, leading to much popular discontent. The theocratic nature of government, which prohibited criticism of both Church and state, distancing the Church from the masses. Finally the periodic antipathy of the church towards scientific progress and modernity further incensed the burgeoning intellectual classes. These factors collectively provided the backdrop for the emergence of new ideas that began to challenge the undisputed authority of the Church and led to the birth of the secular political order.In contrast to the situation in Medieval Europe, a study of Islamic culture and Islamic history would indicate the great extent to which they are adverse to the problems that necessitated transition to a new model of political governance in Europe. With all Muslims bound by Islamic law to the same degree and with no exceptions, Islam has not developed a clergy. The existence of scholars well-versed in the Islamic disciplines has never translated into a religious hierarchical structure with monopoly over religion. In addition, history is testament to the absence of institution equivalent to the Church in the Islamic world, which owned or owns thousands of properties, serfs and acres of land. The mosque has an important role in Islamic society but is has never been bound by feudalism, the way archbishops, bishops and abbots in Germany 'gave their loyalty to the king and became no different than great nobles, managing agriculture and owing military services' (Durant, 1950). Therefore the religious elite and exploitive religious institutions that plagued Europe prior to the reformation have no place within Islamic culture and never developed in Islamic societies in the past.The Islamic model of government is not theocratic, as the ruler is not divinely appointed, nor is he beyond the law. A just society is further enhanced by the presence of accountability mechanisms such as political parties, a council of representatives and an independent judiciary that curtail the emergence of oppressive government. The Orientalist caricature of authoritarianism being inherent in Islamic culture seems rather one-dimensional after inspection of the Islamic political system. A clearer outline of that system can be found in the article 'New Caliphate New Era' in this edition of New Civilisation.Islamic history bears testimony to the progress that was made in the various sciences led to a highly developed civilisation. The fear of a society based upon religion being an anathema to science and technology was not realised in Islam, therefore the dichotomy between religion and science does not exist in its culture. While a framework existed to ensure law and order, the excesses of state intrusion upon society did not manifest in the Islamic world to the extent to which they were found in Europe. It is clear that the analogy between Western and Islamic historical development is weak, so it is unfortunate that Lewis and others have failed to provide a proper insight into the nature of Islamic culture, but have instead continued to purport the traditional Orientalist party line. I am not trying to put an Elysian sheen on Islamic history, because there is no doubt that serious failings on various fronts did occur. However such failings need to be analysed through a constructive prism rather than projecting Europe's experiences into a dissimilar environment.So what factors lie behind the current situation of the Middle East if the Orientalist view is unfounded? Drawing upon the recent history of the Middle East demonstrates further failings in the Orientialist reading of the Muslim world. Rather than Islamic culture featuring prominently in the political structures of the region and thus holding the Muslim world back, the reality is that for most of the last two centuries, Islam largely vacated the political space, to the extent that it came to be practiced almost exclusively in a social and spiritual capacity. The increasing political marginalisation of Islam can be traced back to the early 19th century, when officials in the Ottoman Caliphate found it difficult to apply Islam and to confront the numerous challenges they faced from an increasingly assertive and ambitious Europe, because of the absence of the juristic process of ijtihad. The loss of ijtihad as a tool for tackling new problems was the result of a broader intellectual, cultural and juristic decline that had been festering since the 13th Century CE. Following the closure of the 'doors of ijtihad', which meant restrictions were placed on the exercise of this intellectual discipline, a narrow approach developed in understanding Islam to problems in the society. The trend away from Islam became particularly pronounced by the mid-nineteenth century, when Ottoman reforms explicitly introduced European legal precepts in the form of a new penal code in 1857, new laws for trading rights in 1858 and the separation of courts ending the exclusivity of the Shariah courts. The eventual termination of the Ottoman Caliphate in 1924 marked the formal end of Islam in a ruling capacity, though Islam had no practical presence in political life for years before that.The despots who followed - and who currently plague the Middle East - did not draw on an Islamic political or cultural heritage to rule but rather flagrantly contradicted it; the fact that they rule over Muslims and periodically use religious rhetoric does not change this. Blaming the current tyranny and backwardness on Islam ignores the vast changes of the past two centuries, which in fact created the political vacuum that the current authoritarian dictators, monarchs and presidents eventually filled, and who now represent the real impediment to progress. Importantly, as a factor in the ongoing failure to progress, the slow marginalisation of Islam also marked a move away from a complimentary set of political, social, and economic ideas capable of articulating a coherent direction - which had once formed the basis of a formidable civilisation - to the take-up of a mixture of different and even contradictory thoughts in the scramble for new solutions, ideologies and political values. This led to a confused picture on how to proceed and what it meant to progress. Arab nationalism, Arab socialism, and the like all represented experiments that ultimately ended in failure, their number and variety representing the confused political scene that arose in the wake of Islam's marginalisation. This failure to map a coherent direction thus acted as an impediment to progress. Such internal factors as outlined above are a justifiable lens through which one can view the backwardness of the Middle East. However as Edward Said mentioned, nothing that goes on in our world has ever been isolated from outside influence and interference. Therefore we need to discuss issues of injustice and suffering within the context of this external influence. Middle Easterners are continuously told that victimology and dwelling upon the depredations of colonialism are ways of evading the responsibility that faces the region in the present. This carries some truth as one can become lost in the sea of history and self-pity. But this habit of blaming others for internal issues within the Middle East is presented by Orientalists to focus and restrict the problem on the culture exclusively, and therefore exclude other factors and reasoning. This is of course is also V.S Naipaul's contribution to literature, that the victims of empire wail while their country is ruined and ravaged.This flimsy reasoning however ignores colonial intrusion and interference in the affairs of the Middle East. The region has been a constant target of intervention and interference by foreign powers throughout history due to its importance strategically and economically. The key problem in the region at the moment is entrenched political systems that are failing the people. These regimes have been installed and maintained by foreign powers. They have acted against their own populations, resulting in bloodbaths and massacres. Competing foreign powers have waged proxy wars at the expense of stability in the region, preventing the emergence of a clear and stable political path. The regimes today are not representative of an Islamic heritage or Islamic thinking in ruling, therefore to equate Islam with authoritarianism is incorrect and naïve. The line that started in 1798 with Napoleon's invasion of Egypt, the colonial takeover of North Africa, and the Mandate era, continued during the twentieth century with struggle over resources and strategic control in the Gulf, in Iraq, Syria and Libya. The consequences of greed and meddling have been horrific, leaving their scars on the region to this day. The creation of the nation state system and colonisation of the region in the aftermath of the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire led to the emergence of nationalistic struggles for liberation. The rise of anti-colonialist nationalism resulted in the death of thousands such as what unfolded during the Egyptian uprising of 1919 and the Algerian war of 1954, which ended in 1962. Decolonisation was the not the end of instability, as after the short period of relative independence, the region witnessed political turmoil resulting in the era of military coups and counter coups, insurgency and civil war. Syria experienced 29 different governments between 1946 and 1970; a similar story of instability can be traced in Jordan and Iraq. The era of national liberation coincided with the advent of the Cold War, a period within which the West were content to support tyrannical regimes in order to safeguard national interests from the Soviet threat. Populations were subjugated under despots such as Saddam Hussein, Anwar Sadat, Hassan Bourgiba and King Hussein, who cared little for their populaces but were supported and backed by the West. After the end of the Cold War, there was little change in policy towards the autocratic regimes in the Middle East with support continuing for rulers such as Hosni Mubarak of Egypt and Ben Ali of Tunisia. Persistent interference in Middle Eastern affairs and explicit support to despotic regimes has led to the imprisonment of tens of thousands throughout the region, especially those who call for a return to an Islamic system.The post 9/11 climate does not herald a change in policy towards the Middle East, despite calls for democracy and freedom from the Bush administration. Support for selected regimes continues whereas those considered as potential threats are dismantled through American power. All the above-mentioned events are products of external interference and the consequences have been horrific to say the least. The Middle East is a strategic region and due to its importance foreign powers have constantly taken the interventionist approach, safeguarding interests at the expense of the needs of the region's population. The aspirations of the people have been neglected by the regimes and the foreign powers, which has bred a deep-rooted culture of political apathy , which has grown over the decades but is now being replaced by a demand for change. The people have become increasingly assertive and aware of the fact that they have often been pawns in a wider political game for control of the region by foreign powers, which does not seem to abate any time soon.Therefore what should become apparent is the greater context to the discussion about the state of the Middle East. Objectivity is clearly needed to move away from the narrow isolated approach to understanding the Middle East, in order to succeed in providing thought-provoking insight into the reality of the region. I hope that through this article I have been able to initiate the beginning of a discussion beyond the constraints that Orientalism has built, a discussion that extends into a more comprehensive understanding of the problems of the region. The Middle East is at an important juncture in history, with perceptions of its problems currently being built upon bias, value judgements and preconceptions. This thinking is penetrating and mapping American foreign policy towards the Middle East, which does not inspire confidence concerning the future of the region given what has already happened since 9/11. Pandora's Box has been opened, inviting objective and inclusive discussion about the political future of the region.
Bibliography
Edward W Said, (1978), 'Orientalism', Routledge and Keegan Paul Ltd.Edward W Said, (1995), 'Orientalism: Western conception of the Orient, London: Penguin Books.Zaiuddin, Sardar, (1999), 'Orientalism', Open University PressA.L. Macfie, (2002), 'Orientalism', Pearson Education LimitedOliver Roy, (1994), 'The failure of Political Islam', I.B. Tauris & Co Ltd.Edward W Said, 'Preface to Orientalism', Al Ahram Weekly, 22/05/05Murad Othman, (2003), 'Edward Said- The emperor is dead', http://www.globalcomment.comSamuel Huntington, (1991), 'The Third Wave: Democratization in the late twentieth century', University Oklahoma Press.Shahid Alam, (2002), 'Scholarship or Sophistry? Bernard Lewis and the New Orientalism', Studies in Contemporary Islam 4.Bernard Lewis, (2002), 'What Went Wrong? Western Impact and the Middle East Response, Oxford University Press.J.J Rousseau, (1762), 'Social Contact',http://www.mdx.ac.uk/www/study/xrou.htmElie Kedourie, (1992), 'Arab and Political Culture', Washington Institute for Near East PolicyMartin Kramer, (2002), 'Ivory Towers on Sand: The failure of Middle Eastern Studies in America', Washington Institute for Near East Policy.J. MacKenzie, (1995), 'Orientalism: History, Theory and the Arts', Manchester.Michel Foucault, (1991), 'Discipline and Punish. The Birth of the Prison', London: Penguin Books, pp27Will, Durant, (1950), 'The Age of faith', New York: Simon and Schuster, Inc.
After a subdued role in the public arena during the 1990s, Orientalist perspectives of Islam and the Middle East have re-surfaced, contributing to the construction of another perceived nightmare from which people need rescuing and saving.Orientalism: Study and ApproachAccording to the Oxford English dictionary (1971), the word Orientalism was generally used in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries to refer to the work of the Orientalist, a scholar versed in the languages and literatures of the Orient (Macfie, 2002). Toward the end of the eighteenth and the first quarter of the nineteenth centuries, the word began to acquire and reflect an alternative meaning, which coincided with British colonial rule and governance in India. Orientalism in the British tradition was used to refer to or identify a 'conservative and romantic' approach to the problems of government, faced by the officials of the East India Company in India (Mackenzie, 1995). This understanding and perception of Orientalism dominated minds and official political thinking during the epoch mentioned and was viewed as providing a much needed insight into the culture, behaviour, traits and mannerisms of the Orient, so that the Occident could attain a better understanding of far-off societies and civilisations. This rather abstract approach and study towards the Orient came into question during the period of de-colonisation that followed the end of the Second World War (1939-1945). Previously considered a neutral discipline, Orientalism began to attract suspicions of cynicism and subjectivity in its approach towards the Orient. This new attitude towards Orientalism turned this approach into a fiercely contested word within the world of academia. After recognition as a scholarly tradition, concerned with the study of the Orient, its approach was now found to be rather biased, touching upon negativism - some even suggested a hint of racism - as it consistently concluded that non-western civilisations (Orient) were inferior and mediocre in contrast to the superior and more advanced Occident (Sardar, 1999). More specifically, the culpability for this inferiority and backwardness was placed upon Oriental cultures and values. According to Orientalism, these values had effectively chained and subdued societies, preventing them from progressing and engaging in the process that drove the 'Enlightenment' and Reformation in the Occident, which consequentially gave birth to capitalism and the liberal ideology, laying the foundation for the scientific and industrial revolutions that followed (Said, 1978). In essence, according to the Orientalist perspective, the internal configuration and orientation of such societies was the underlying dominant causation behind their deterioration and decline (Roy, 1994).Scholars such as Anouan Abdel Malek, an Egyptian sociologist, Abdul Latif. Tibawi, a Palestinian scholar of Arab history, Bryan S. Turner, a leading English sociologist and Edward W. Said have provided scholarly critique of Orientalism, associating it with imperialism. Edward Said's book 'Orientalism' exposed the inherent perceived prejudices towards Arabs and Muslims in the works of leading writers and intellectuals who would class themselves as Orientalists. He argued that the portrayal of the Orient in novels and other published material in Europe and America was intended to provide the legitimacy for colonialism. This line of argument was reinforced in Said's later books, such as 'Culture and Imperialism' and 'Covering Islam' (Othman, 2003). However, this refutation of Orientalism did not go unchallenged, with Orientalists launching a defence of their approach against the aforementioned academics. Rather than delving into the numerous arguments posed by the advocates and opponents of Orientalism, my article aims to provide an insight into the re-emergence of Orientalist perceptions of the Middle East post-9/11. I also intend to provide an intellectual framework for a constructive discussion and debate about the way forward for the Middle East from the predicament it is in today. Problems exist in all states, whether the problems are related to social relations, economics, or politics and the Middle East is no exception; it deserves objective analysis, approach and study in order to understand the truth of the situation.The Orient re-visitedThe Middle East has been an important centre of colonial struggle and conflicting interests due to its economic riches and strategic geographical position. Media focus and coverage of the Middle East has been intense in the last few years, which is not surprising given that the region has become the centre for the American led War on Terror and the drive for democratisation which has been articulated as a foreign policy objective by Bush administration. As a result of the aggressive neo-conservative foreign policy, debate about the root causes of 'Islamic terrorism', the socio-economic failings of the region and the political future of the Middle East has come to the fore. This debate amongst western thinkers and policy makers is remarkable and a major turn around, given that prior to the 1990s, the Middle East was seen as beyond hope of change and reform, unlike other regions around the world, coinciding with Samuel Huntington's 'Third Wave' of democratisation (1991). The term 'Middle Eastern Exceptionalism' was coined to infer the apparently inherent inability of the region to engage in any substantial political engineering in order to re-orient its stagnant political infrastructures. The seminal work on political reform and change by Diamond et al during the 1980s excluded the Middle East, further reinforcing the repuation of the region as a political anomaly. During the 1980s, academics such as Elie Kedourie, Bernard Lewis and Fuad Ajami related this peculiarity of the region to intrinsic cultural issues, emphasising traditional Orientalist arguments about the backwardness of the Orient. They pointed out a number of factors that they believed contributed to the backwardness and stagnation of Middle Eastern societies; issues such as the absence of civil society, the Arab psyche, praetorianism and the domination of patriarchy within Arab political systems. A number of issues emerged which the Orientalists perceived as root causes of backwardness in the Middle East, but significantly they connected the above-mentioned factors to the institutional role Islam has played in Middle Eastern societies. Islam developed, according to them, a political culture and mindset of entrenched gender polarisation and passivity, which resulted in social imbalance and consequently led to a downward spiral of backwardness (Kedourie, 1992). This particular reading of the Middle East was dominant during the 1980s, but with the end of Communism, alternative perspectives and theses emerged concerning the Middle East, which did not propound such a negative picture concerning prospects of reform. The field of Middle Eastern Studies gained further diversity in addition to the Saidian school of thought (named thus because it followed from the approach of Edward Said) and put Orientalist negativism on the back foot. Despite this intellectual diversity in relation to the study of the Middle East, the old commentaries have returned to the fore post-9/11, providing a regurgitation of old ill-conceived perceptions of the Middle East. The skewed commentaries provided by the Orientalists have been instrumental in shaping public mindsets and thinking towards the Middle East.Contemporary societies in the Middle East have been under sustained attack for their lack of democracy, discrimination against religious minorities and the inferior legal status of women. The Orientalist dogma of negativism, subjectivity and perceiving the 'other' has resurfaced, providing justification for America to project its power and to utilise violence to liberate the backward Middle East from dictatorial and autocratic political systems. Bernard Lewis, described as 'the doyen of Middle East Studies', has penetrated Bush's Pentagon and National Security Council and has been instrumental in helping the likes of Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld develop their understanding of the causes of the problems in the Middle East and the potential correctives (Alam, 2002). Secular democracy is presented by Lewis as a cure for the ills of the region, requiring hard power in order to institutionalise secular models of governance. A decisive show of American strength in the Arab world is needed to take the offensive in the region and rid it of despotism. He was among the earliest voices in the aftermath of 9/11 to press for confrontation with Iraq, expressing his thoughts in a series of pieces in the Wall Street Journal with titles like 'A War of Resolve' and 'Time for Toppling' (Hirsh, 2004). Lewis is not alone; a fleet of able lieutenants, such as Raphael Patai, Thomas Friedman, Daniel Pipes and Martin Kramer have all made ample contributions. Martin Kramer's book, 'Ivory Towers on Sand: The failure of Middle Eastern Studies in America'(2002), launches a scathing attack upon the present status of scholarship in the field in America, considering it too apologetic and failing in its duty to inform policy makers of the real issues concerning Islam and the Middle East.Twenty seven years after the publication of Edward Said's 'Orientalism', in which he highlighted the intentions, assumptions, modalities and negativity of the Orientalist approach, there is a dire need for an objective and thoughtful discourse about the Middle East that excluding bias and prejudices. We can agree with Orientalism's criticisms of the authoritarianism, moribund political systems, economic retardation and the oppression that women face in the region. I hope to discuss in the following sections of the article what factors, or factions, are to blame for such problems, in order to widen the parameters of blame and criticism.Who or what is to blame?Put simply, the Orientalists consider the Islamic culture to be fundamentally responsible for the political, economic and social failure of the Middle East, in the past and in the contemporary era. In his aforementioned book What Went Wrong? Western impact and Middle Eastern response, Bernard Lewis identifies the Islamic culture as a key cause of the malaise that pervades the Middle East today. He argues that the absence of clearly defined secular parameters are an instrumental factor in the region's modernity deficit. According to Lewis secularism, recognising the separation of church and state "is, in a profound sense, Christian", as the Christian injunction to give God and Caesar each their due laid the framework for the evolution and development of modern western societies. Western secularism is therefore inherently Christian due to the presence of this religious precept in Christian theology. Prior to the enlightenment era the Church had transgressed against Christianity and imposed itself upon society. Progressively increasing its power, it used the state to eliminate or marginalise competing religions; it gained the right to define all religious dogma and rituals; it acquired properties, privileges and exclusive control over education; it expanded its legislative control over different spheres of society (Alam, 2002). This was the predicament of Europe during Medievalism and a crucial factor, according to Lewis, in the failings of Europe until the separation of Church and state, first seen in the French revolution, heralded a new era of progress and modernisation. Consequently Lewis identifies the role of Islam in the political domain as a key source of backwardness.The Orientalists fail to understand the deterioration of the Middle East when they view the region through the lens of European history. A number of factors formed the environment within which Europe underwent political change, heralding the emergence of secular political systems. Abuses such as simony, nepotism and financial excess were frequent, leading to much popular discontent. The theocratic nature of government, which prohibited criticism of both Church and state, distancing the Church from the masses. Finally the periodic antipathy of the church towards scientific progress and modernity further incensed the burgeoning intellectual classes. These factors collectively provided the backdrop for the emergence of new ideas that began to challenge the undisputed authority of the Church and led to the birth of the secular political order.In contrast to the situation in Medieval Europe, a study of Islamic culture and Islamic history would indicate the great extent to which they are adverse to the problems that necessitated transition to a new model of political governance in Europe. With all Muslims bound by Islamic law to the same degree and with no exceptions, Islam has not developed a clergy. The existence of scholars well-versed in the Islamic disciplines has never translated into a religious hierarchical structure with monopoly over religion. In addition, history is testament to the absence of institution equivalent to the Church in the Islamic world, which owned or owns thousands of properties, serfs and acres of land. The mosque has an important role in Islamic society but is has never been bound by feudalism, the way archbishops, bishops and abbots in Germany 'gave their loyalty to the king and became no different than great nobles, managing agriculture and owing military services' (Durant, 1950). Therefore the religious elite and exploitive religious institutions that plagued Europe prior to the reformation have no place within Islamic culture and never developed in Islamic societies in the past.The Islamic model of government is not theocratic, as the ruler is not divinely appointed, nor is he beyond the law. A just society is further enhanced by the presence of accountability mechanisms such as political parties, a council of representatives and an independent judiciary that curtail the emergence of oppressive government. The Orientalist caricature of authoritarianism being inherent in Islamic culture seems rather one-dimensional after inspection of the Islamic political system. A clearer outline of that system can be found in the article 'New Caliphate New Era' in this edition of New Civilisation.Islamic history bears testimony to the progress that was made in the various sciences led to a highly developed civilisation. The fear of a society based upon religion being an anathema to science and technology was not realised in Islam, therefore the dichotomy between religion and science does not exist in its culture. While a framework existed to ensure law and order, the excesses of state intrusion upon society did not manifest in the Islamic world to the extent to which they were found in Europe. It is clear that the analogy between Western and Islamic historical development is weak, so it is unfortunate that Lewis and others have failed to provide a proper insight into the nature of Islamic culture, but have instead continued to purport the traditional Orientalist party line. I am not trying to put an Elysian sheen on Islamic history, because there is no doubt that serious failings on various fronts did occur. However such failings need to be analysed through a constructive prism rather than projecting Europe's experiences into a dissimilar environment.So what factors lie behind the current situation of the Middle East if the Orientalist view is unfounded? Drawing upon the recent history of the Middle East demonstrates further failings in the Orientialist reading of the Muslim world. Rather than Islamic culture featuring prominently in the political structures of the region and thus holding the Muslim world back, the reality is that for most of the last two centuries, Islam largely vacated the political space, to the extent that it came to be practiced almost exclusively in a social and spiritual capacity. The increasing political marginalisation of Islam can be traced back to the early 19th century, when officials in the Ottoman Caliphate found it difficult to apply Islam and to confront the numerous challenges they faced from an increasingly assertive and ambitious Europe, because of the absence of the juristic process of ijtihad. The loss of ijtihad as a tool for tackling new problems was the result of a broader intellectual, cultural and juristic decline that had been festering since the 13th Century CE. Following the closure of the 'doors of ijtihad', which meant restrictions were placed on the exercise of this intellectual discipline, a narrow approach developed in understanding Islam to problems in the society. The trend away from Islam became particularly pronounced by the mid-nineteenth century, when Ottoman reforms explicitly introduced European legal precepts in the form of a new penal code in 1857, new laws for trading rights in 1858 and the separation of courts ending the exclusivity of the Shariah courts. The eventual termination of the Ottoman Caliphate in 1924 marked the formal end of Islam in a ruling capacity, though Islam had no practical presence in political life for years before that.The despots who followed - and who currently plague the Middle East - did not draw on an Islamic political or cultural heritage to rule but rather flagrantly contradicted it; the fact that they rule over Muslims and periodically use religious rhetoric does not change this. Blaming the current tyranny and backwardness on Islam ignores the vast changes of the past two centuries, which in fact created the political vacuum that the current authoritarian dictators, monarchs and presidents eventually filled, and who now represent the real impediment to progress. Importantly, as a factor in the ongoing failure to progress, the slow marginalisation of Islam also marked a move away from a complimentary set of political, social, and economic ideas capable of articulating a coherent direction - which had once formed the basis of a formidable civilisation - to the take-up of a mixture of different and even contradictory thoughts in the scramble for new solutions, ideologies and political values. This led to a confused picture on how to proceed and what it meant to progress. Arab nationalism, Arab socialism, and the like all represented experiments that ultimately ended in failure, their number and variety representing the confused political scene that arose in the wake of Islam's marginalisation. This failure to map a coherent direction thus acted as an impediment to progress. Such internal factors as outlined above are a justifiable lens through which one can view the backwardness of the Middle East. However as Edward Said mentioned, nothing that goes on in our world has ever been isolated from outside influence and interference. Therefore we need to discuss issues of injustice and suffering within the context of this external influence. Middle Easterners are continuously told that victimology and dwelling upon the depredations of colonialism are ways of evading the responsibility that faces the region in the present. This carries some truth as one can become lost in the sea of history and self-pity. But this habit of blaming others for internal issues within the Middle East is presented by Orientalists to focus and restrict the problem on the culture exclusively, and therefore exclude other factors and reasoning. This is of course is also V.S Naipaul's contribution to literature, that the victims of empire wail while their country is ruined and ravaged.This flimsy reasoning however ignores colonial intrusion and interference in the affairs of the Middle East. The region has been a constant target of intervention and interference by foreign powers throughout history due to its importance strategically and economically. The key problem in the region at the moment is entrenched political systems that are failing the people. These regimes have been installed and maintained by foreign powers. They have acted against their own populations, resulting in bloodbaths and massacres. Competing foreign powers have waged proxy wars at the expense of stability in the region, preventing the emergence of a clear and stable political path. The regimes today are not representative of an Islamic heritage or Islamic thinking in ruling, therefore to equate Islam with authoritarianism is incorrect and naïve. The line that started in 1798 with Napoleon's invasion of Egypt, the colonial takeover of North Africa, and the Mandate era, continued during the twentieth century with struggle over resources and strategic control in the Gulf, in Iraq, Syria and Libya. The consequences of greed and meddling have been horrific, leaving their scars on the region to this day. The creation of the nation state system and colonisation of the region in the aftermath of the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire led to the emergence of nationalistic struggles for liberation. The rise of anti-colonialist nationalism resulted in the death of thousands such as what unfolded during the Egyptian uprising of 1919 and the Algerian war of 1954, which ended in 1962. Decolonisation was the not the end of instability, as after the short period of relative independence, the region witnessed political turmoil resulting in the era of military coups and counter coups, insurgency and civil war. Syria experienced 29 different governments between 1946 and 1970; a similar story of instability can be traced in Jordan and Iraq. The era of national liberation coincided with the advent of the Cold War, a period within which the West were content to support tyrannical regimes in order to safeguard national interests from the Soviet threat. Populations were subjugated under despots such as Saddam Hussein, Anwar Sadat, Hassan Bourgiba and King Hussein, who cared little for their populaces but were supported and backed by the West. After the end of the Cold War, there was little change in policy towards the autocratic regimes in the Middle East with support continuing for rulers such as Hosni Mubarak of Egypt and Ben Ali of Tunisia. Persistent interference in Middle Eastern affairs and explicit support to despotic regimes has led to the imprisonment of tens of thousands throughout the region, especially those who call for a return to an Islamic system.The post 9/11 climate does not herald a change in policy towards the Middle East, despite calls for democracy and freedom from the Bush administration. Support for selected regimes continues whereas those considered as potential threats are dismantled through American power. All the above-mentioned events are products of external interference and the consequences have been horrific to say the least. The Middle East is a strategic region and due to its importance foreign powers have constantly taken the interventionist approach, safeguarding interests at the expense of the needs of the region's population. The aspirations of the people have been neglected by the regimes and the foreign powers, which has bred a deep-rooted culture of political apathy , which has grown over the decades but is now being replaced by a demand for change. The people have become increasingly assertive and aware of the fact that they have often been pawns in a wider political game for control of the region by foreign powers, which does not seem to abate any time soon.Therefore what should become apparent is the greater context to the discussion about the state of the Middle East. Objectivity is clearly needed to move away from the narrow isolated approach to understanding the Middle East, in order to succeed in providing thought-provoking insight into the reality of the region. I hope that through this article I have been able to initiate the beginning of a discussion beyond the constraints that Orientalism has built, a discussion that extends into a more comprehensive understanding of the problems of the region. The Middle East is at an important juncture in history, with perceptions of its problems currently being built upon bias, value judgements and preconceptions. This thinking is penetrating and mapping American foreign policy towards the Middle East, which does not inspire confidence concerning the future of the region given what has already happened since 9/11. Pandora's Box has been opened, inviting objective and inclusive discussion about the political future of the region.
Bibliography
Edward W Said, (1978), 'Orientalism', Routledge and Keegan Paul Ltd.Edward W Said, (1995), 'Orientalism: Western conception of the Orient, London: Penguin Books.Zaiuddin, Sardar, (1999), 'Orientalism', Open University PressA.L. Macfie, (2002), 'Orientalism', Pearson Education LimitedOliver Roy, (1994), 'The failure of Political Islam', I.B. Tauris & Co Ltd.Edward W Said, 'Preface to Orientalism', Al Ahram Weekly, 22/05/05Murad Othman, (2003), 'Edward Said- The emperor is dead', http://www.globalcomment.comSamuel Huntington, (1991), 'The Third Wave: Democratization in the late twentieth century', University Oklahoma Press.Shahid Alam, (2002), 'Scholarship or Sophistry? Bernard Lewis and the New Orientalism', Studies in Contemporary Islam 4.Bernard Lewis, (2002), 'What Went Wrong? Western Impact and the Middle East Response, Oxford University Press.J.J Rousseau, (1762), 'Social Contact',http://www.mdx.ac.uk/www/study/xrou.htmElie Kedourie, (1992), 'Arab and Political Culture', Washington Institute for Near East PolicyMartin Kramer, (2002), 'Ivory Towers on Sand: The failure of Middle Eastern Studies in America', Washington Institute for Near East Policy.J. MacKenzie, (1995), 'Orientalism: History, Theory and the Arts', Manchester.Michel Foucault, (1991), 'Discipline and Punish. The Birth of the Prison', London: Penguin Books, pp27Will, Durant, (1950), 'The Age of faith', New York: Simon and Schuster, Inc.
Losing Hearts and Minds
Communities Secretary, Ruth Kelly, launched proposals “Preventing Violent Extremism” on April 5 2007. The plan, aimed at winning the “hearts and minds” of young Muslims, would include targeting mosques, which the Government and a handful of Muslim organisations, believe are radicalising young Muslims, but it is unfortunately ill-conceived. The legislative proposals include the new role of the Charity Commission, which will only target mosques in “improving governance.” This is blatant discrimination as Churches, Synagogues, Temples, Gurdwaras and other religious places will be exempt from this new scrutiny. The Government intends to use its own imams who will be sent to prisons and universities to tackle individuals who “are susceptible to extremism.” It is also setting up and backing projects to create new leaders in the Muslim community of its own liking. The Government further hopes to “encourage” the teaching of citizenship in madrassahs and Muslim supplementary schools. Again all this will only be targeted at the Muslim community, which is being unfairly singled out. Other faith institutions and their religious teaching programmes are exempt. “Our action plan will do this. It sets out how new training opportunities will help imams take on the extremists’ messages, it signals a step change in madrassahs’ role in teaching citizenship and it supports strong and inclusive governance of mosques with a new role for the Charity Commission,” said Kelly at the Muslim Cultural Heritage Centre in West London, where she launched her proposals. Yet there is no evidence that mosques are creating or preaching violent extremism. The only example given by the Communities Secretary was Abu Hamza and Finsbury Park Mosque. But what she did not say is that the trustees of this mosque had asked the police’s help to re-gain the control of the mosque, who not only refused but, according to media reports, chose to monitor extremists who attended the mosque instead. And who gets the blame? The Muslim community. In its plans, the Government is trying to compete with an independent body to deal with imams and mosques, the Imams National Advisory Body (MINAB). It seems the Government does not want independent Muslim community led projects to tackle the community’s concerns. Rather it wants to control the imams and the mosques. It is important to remind ourselves that the Home Office had tried to do something similar two years ago but failed to get it off the ground as it targeted all faith groups and their religious centres. Proposed legislation by the former Home Secretary, Charles Clarke, backfired and as Christians, Jews, Sikhs, Hindus and Muslims campaigned together against the plans, the Government was forced to back down. However, learning from that experience, the Government has now sought to target only imams and mosques and is being underhanded in its means to achieve it. Kelly said in her speech that 60 organisations had written an open letter and “have given support to the principles underpinning our action plan.” The letter, titled, ‘Parallel Muslim Communities Statement to Speech of Ruth Kelly, MP, Minister of State’, dated April 5, was actually not written by the named organisations. It was written by a consultant, and many organisations and Muslim leaders were simply briefed over the telephone about parts of the statement. Many we contacted were not told that the letter was in support of the Government action plan. The majority had not even seen the text of the letter. Some organisations, both Shi’a and Sunni, even had their names appended to the letter without their knowledge. For example, the Sunni organisation, Jamiat Tablighul Islam and the Interim Committee of the British Shi’a Council, were not even aware of the statement and were not consulted before their names were included. The new proposals assume it is religion, imams and mosques that are radicalising the young Muslims. The evidence is otherwise. A four year study of Muslims in prisons published this month vindicates that it is not the imams who are radicalising Muslim prisoners, but the way they are treated by the prison authorities that is the problem. (see page 1 for the report ). Radicalisation and extremism is taking place outside mosques. The primary factor is our foreign policy, which is alienating young people and not religion. The Iraq war has been a prime example. All surveys, including Foreign Office’s own internal reports leaked to the media, vindicate this. Moreover, the two videos by the July 7 terrorists also discuss foreign policy as their major cause. The proposals have been described as “disastrous” by the Liberal Democrats Communities Spokesman, Andrew Stunell. “State interference in places of worship does not deal with the root causes of religious extremism. It was never suggested during the troubles in Northern Ireland that state regulations of Catholic churches would have ended IRA activities,” Stunell said. This is not to say that everything in Ruth Kelly’s speech was misguided. There is a need to tackle extremism and radicalisation not only in Muslim community but in others too. This also includes other problems that are unfortunately endemic in society, like gun culture to name but one. Figures have also shown that the majority of those convicted under terrorism legislation have not been Muslims. This is vindicated by a Gallup poll published last week which confirms what we have been arguing in these columns, that Muslims are more likely to identify with Britain and have confidence in its institutions than the population as a whole. The survey shows Muslims are more likely to take a positive view of living side by side with people of different races and religions. Fifty-seven percent of the Muslims polled identified strongly with their country, compared with 48% of the general public. Muslims were also more likely to express confidence in the police (78% to 69%), national Government (64% to 36%), the justice system (67% to 55%) and elections (73% to 60%). Nearly three-quarters of the Muslims said they felt loyal to the UK (compared with 45% of the non-Muslims) and 82% said they respected other religions (compared with 54%). Muslims are more likely to unequivocally condemn the use of violence to further a “noble cause” than the non-Muslims. A survey of London Muslims found 81% believed such violence was “completely unjustified” compared to 72% of the UK non-Muslims. The Home Office Citizenship Survey published in 2003, found that Muslims were more likely to feel that they belonged to Britain than Indians, African and Caribbeans. The way to tackle violent extremism is not to target imams or mosques. We have to look elsewhere to tackle the real roots. As we have repeatedly said, an independent judicial inquiry is of utmost importance to find out the reasons that leads some people to commit terrorist acts. Muslims have been working hard for more than a decade to improve the running of mosques and improving the calibre of imams. There are hundreds of “homegrown” imams, trained in our institutions in Britain. We have an increasing number of good practise in mosques. Let the community continue to look after its own institutions independently of the Government interference. MINAB, which is still in its infancy, needs to be given time to gain the confidence of the community. The Government interfering in religious matters will only alienate the community and will be counterproductive. All of us are concerned about terrorism and the bombs do not distinguish between Muslims and non-Muslims. In fact ten percent of those killed in the July 7 terrorist attacks were Muslim disproportionately more than the size of the community in the UK.
http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/paper/index.php?article=2928
http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/paper/index.php?article=2928
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)