WHY PARIS?

On a fine day in 1992, political scientist Samuel P Huntington delivered a lecture at the American Enterprise Institute in which he laid down the theory of the Clash of Civilizations. He developed this theory in the next year, in an article published by Foreign Affairs. He writes, ‘It is my hypothesis that the fundamental source of conflict in this new world will not be primarily ideological or primarily economic. The great divisions amend humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural. Nation States will remain the most powerful actors in world affairs, but the principal conflicts of global politics will occur between nations and groups of different civilizations. The clash of civilizations will dominate global politics. The fault lines between civilizations will be the battle lines of the future.’

The world has been at a state of war since history has been recorded, yet it can be implied that the situation in 1992 was significantly different from the situation in 2015. Merely two decades have passed, yet the world has felt an enormous shift in how global politics is perceived. Many people, especially in the muslim world, believe that there was a single event which determined and still determines their fate today.

9/11 was the foundation on which the War on Terror officially began. Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Pakistan, Egypt and Palestine were directly and indirectly targeted by forces far greater than them in size and resources. Did all these countries have any link to the anomalous event of 9/11? Perhaps not, yet there was a country which was very directly involved in this conspicuous attack, Saudi Arabia, the outlier in the long list of muslim countries.

At this moment, it would be pertinent to mention the ideological differences which exist between the greater western world and Saudi Arabia, their foremost ally in the middle east region. Saudi Arabia is ruled by the House of Saud, the family of a warlord which joined hands with Wahabi elements a long time ago, a union which has been extremely successful since then.

A ban on women driving, public beheadings, stoning of adulterers, murders of alleged blasphemers and a total ban on freedom of speech are just some of the things Saudi Arabia has to offer apart from its humungous oil reserves. It is very understandable how such a place can become an epitome for extremist thought. Would it be unfair to imply that Saudi Arabia has another major export besides oil? After all, Islamic extremism finds compliance somewhere, and it would be extremely unfair if only one country was blamed.

The OPEC crisis was an eye opener for the western civilization as Samuel P Huntington would put it. Oil is one of the most important driving force of economic growth, and without an efficient and reliable supply, the future is more than gloomy. Long story short, the United States, the captain of the West’s ship forged an unprecedented alliance with Saudi Arabia. The West’s oil supplies have not faced any major hindrance since then.

Fighting Communism using the Mujahideen was another brilliant idea formed by America, guided by Saudi Arabia and implemented by Pakistan. In fact, just a few years before Samuel P Huntington used the famous reference of Clash of Civilizations, Taliban leaders were hobnobbing in Washington, lounging with none other than the US Head of State. So what changed?

To answer this question and the effects which ensued, we have to fast forward a bit. Charlie Hebdo, a satirical magazine published cartoons mocking a religious figure, something which they had previously done before. The editor in chief, along with other staff and a police official were murdered in cold blood by two men who thought that they would earn divine bliss if they massacred innocent people. Yes, there are people who think this way, and there are many, and they are not limited to one place whatsoever. The reactions in muslim countries was disheartening but not astonishing. In Peshawar, Pakistan, thousands gathered in public rallies, celebrating the attack and praising the attackers. It would be pertinent to mention that this was the same city which saw a brutal attack on the Army Public School in which Islamic extremists butchered over 150 children. Newspapers and media outlets in most Muslim countries refused to objectively cover this event, censoring and silencing voices which sympathized with the victims of terror in Paris.

Perhaps the reaction of the Charlie Hebdo attacks in muslim countries was not enough for the people in the West to realize the level of animosity which existed for them in the hearts and minds of millions of muslims. It took their fellow citizens, a cross section of those who belonged to the Islamic faith to make them understand how deep this clash of civilization went.

A feminist group took the stage on an event orchestrated by Muslims, their innocent jibe at the men of faith was not construed as such and the women were greeted with punches and kicks by the aspirers of Paradise. This was in Paris this year, a few months after the Charlie Hebdo Attacks.

Britain, a country also facing an extremist threat saw many voices internally which signaled trouble. Sharia patrols were common place in East London, with young believers harassing those who did not fall under their personal divine parameters. Men like Anjem Choudary of Islam4Uk openly declare support for ISIS, yet Britain continues providing him with financial benefits instead of a well deserved jail cell.

The latest attack in Paris is an eye opener, especially for those who are relatively comfortable in the west. It shows that war cannot be limited to places like Syria and Lebanon. The War on Terror has effectively reached the streets of Paris.

Why Paris? What is so special about this city that it is being attacked again and again? For many in the muslim world, France represents an epitome of secularism, a system in which religion, especially Islam cannot coincide. The same muslims who demand a theological state in muslim countries are staunchly against any kind of religious direction by non muslim countries. When France banned the Burqa, there was an outcry in all the muslim countries, with conservative politicians calling for a complete blackout in trade relations with France. Charlie Hebdo is notorious around the muslim world, and when the European Heads of State stood in solidarity with the magazine, a clear message was sent to those muslims who have declared war on those who do not agree with their worldview.

Who is responsible for this attack? Apart from the attackers who fired the bullets, there are various players who share responsibility for this horrendous massacre. Who are the supporters and facilitators of such men? Instinctively, we will point out to those who brainwash and misguide such gullible men. Yes, they are to blame, but I think they are not the only ones. What about those nation-states which breed such extremists and then discard them when they cease to be useful? They have a fair share of blame too, since they create the circumstances in which such actions arise. But most importantly, I feel that the greater muslim community shares responsibility for the simple reason that rational discourse is still not allowed to be carried out in Islam. It is almost impossible to debate Islam without fear of undesirable consequences. This has to change, and only muslims themselves can change this. Even if the majority of muslims views the western world in a negative light, it certainly does not mean that they wish to massacre everyone residing in those countries. It is time for the silent majority of peaceful muslims to control the dynamics of discourse within Islam, so that it can be determined that this is an ideology of peace.

If extremists continue to control the narrative of Islam, a Clash of Civilizations is inevitable and that conflict will be much more brutal than what we saw at Paris earlier today.

Political Commentary BY Hamza Azhar Salam
Source: Why Paris?