Crisis in the Muslim world

By Shahid M. Amin

Part 1

IT is becoming increasingly apparent that the Islamic world is passing through a period of crisis, which is both external and internal. Externally, there is a growing distrust, which is developing into an actual or potential clash, between Muslim countries on the one side, and the West, particularly the US, on the other.

The internal crisis in the Islamic world is apparent in the growing cleavage in Muslim societies, and which is assuming the shape of a battle for the soul of Islam. A relentless struggle is taking place in Islamic societies between the traditionalists and extremists on the one side, and the moderates and modernists on the other.

It is also notable that the external crisis is fuelling the internal crisis and vice versa. Moreover, the crisis has now acquired global dimensions, particularly after 9/11. The future of the Muslim world is at stake and it is important for all Muslims to make a close study of this phenomenon as dispassionately as possible with a view to separating fact from fiction and myth from reality.

First, let us examine the external dimensions of the crisis, which is perhaps assuming the shape of a clash of civilisations. Here, one has to go back into history to understand the nature of the crisis. The historical records suggest that Islamic countries did, by and large, coexist peacefully with the non-Muslims. Ottoman Turkey had formed alliances with Christian countries and this was also the case with many Muslim rulers in India. Within Islamic states, Muslims were generally tolerant of those not of their faith and living inside their country.

For instance, Muslims ruled over India, Spain, Greece, Yugoslavia and Bulgaria for five centuries or more. But, at the end of their rule, these countries still had large non-Muslim majorities. On the other hand, when Muslim states in Spain and Crimea were reconquered by the Christians, Muslim populations were almost totally annihilated in a short period of time. During the Middle Ages, many Jews found sanctuary in the Muslim world as they fled persecution in Christian Europe. Muslim rulers often appointed Jews (and Christians and Hindus) to important positions in their administrations. The best Jewish religious literature was written by scholars living in Muslim countries like Egypt, Turkey and elsewhere. Muslim tolerance had its source in the teachings of the Holy Quran, where one surah states “there is no compulsion in religion” and another surah says “to you your religion and to me mine.” The Holy Prophet (PBUH) signed his first peace treaty with the Jews of Madina. In the golden period of Islam from the 8th to 16th centuries, Muslims excelled in science, philosophy, the arts and literature, taking inspiration from the writers of ancient Greece, Rome and India. They developed a truly holistic civilisation.

The decline of Muslims started from the 16th century as Muslim societies lost their vibrancy. From the 18th century onwards, the decline in political fortunes was even sharper when the Ottomans lost ground in Europe and the Mughals in India. The distrust between Muslims and European Christians, which had taken strong roots during the Crusades, increased during the Ottoman domination of East Europe from the 14th century onwards. The rise of the West after the 17th century saw European powers taking global control as imperialists and colonialists. In this period, the Muslims lost ground mainly to European Christians. This was a key reason for simmering Muslim resentment against the West, which has now come out in the open.

In more recent times, the implantation of Israel in the heart of the Arab world, and the loss of Jerusalem, turned Muslim and Arab anger initially against Britain and subsequently against the US, which assumed the mantle of protector of Israel. The Palestinian issue has ever since remained a festering wound in the body politic of the Muslims. More than any other cause, this has generated Muslim anger and resentment against the West.

In a paradoxical manner, the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan contributed also towards the growing chasm between civilisations. For geo-strategic reasons and as a part of its own rivalry with the Soviet Union, the US decided to support the Muslim jihad in Afghanistan against Soviet occupation. However, an unintended consequence of this Jihad was that Islamic extremists and fundamentalists gained strength and have ever since made Afghanistan their sanctuary and training ground.

I was Pakistan’s ambassador to Moscow during the 1980s and remember the Soviet warning that these Islamic fundamentalists, who were being nurtured by the US and Pakistan, would at some stage turn against the latter as well. It is evident that the jihadists have emerged as a kind of Frankenstein and are threatening to destroy their own creators. Osama bin Laden and the Al Qaeda, apart from the Taliban, are very much a product of the Afghan war.

Their anti-US campaign started around 1995 when US facilities in Saudi Arabia were attacked and some damage was done to the World Trade Centre in New York. This was followed by the bombing of two US embassies in Africa, in which hundreds of African bystanders were killed, followed by an attack on an American ship in a Yemen port. Then came the horror of 9/11 that really changed the course of world history.

To take revenge for 9/11, the US and its allies attacked and occupied Afghanistan in late 2001 but this did not ended the fighting in Afghanistan where the Taliban are now staging something of a comeback. Similarly, the network of the Al Qaeda has been weakened but has survived the US-led onslaught.

The US military invasion of Iraq in 2003, carried out on the pretext that the Saddam regime possessed weapons of mass distinction reinforced the belief that the US is targeting one Muslim country after another. This perception has brought new recruits to the ranks of Al Qaeda, the Taliban and other militant groups. The Islamic extremists are in the forefront of the guerilla warfare in Iraq against the occupation forces. The growing possibility of a US attack on Iran, in order to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons capability, will further inflame the situation and radicalise Muslim public opinion.

It is also worth noting that the Islamic extremists are currently engaged in a relentless hate campaign and have been seeking to demonise the US in every possible way. Since 9/11, the extremists have gained from the wave of anti-Americanism in Muslim societies, in which even the more moderate sections have joined, to paint an unbalanced and one-sided interpretation of events.

Any objective analysis would suggest that the impression that the US has an anti-Muslim policy is misconceived. In the 1990s, it was the US that secured the liberation of the oppressed Muslims of Bosnia and Kosovo by taking military action against Yugoslavia. The emergence of six independent Muslim states in Central Asia in 1991 was the outcome of the collapse of Soviet communism which had been opposed tooth and nail by the US for decades.

In the Middle East, it was the US that had forced Israeli withdrawals from Sinai, both in 1956 and in 1978. The return of the PLO to the West Bank after the Oslo accords in 1993 was largely due to US efforts. In our own region, according to authoritative accounts, it was the US that had saved West Pakistan from an Indian invasion after the surrender of Pakistani troops in Dhaka in 1971. Similarly, when there were war fears between India and Pakistan in 1999 and again in 2002, it was the US that played the main mediatory role to dissuade India from any kind of military adventure. Continued US diplomatic and economic support has always been and remains a key factor in Pakistan’s quest for security against India.

As for the US invasion of Afghanistan, it was the Al Qaeda, operating from safe sanctuaries in that country, that first attacked the US, and not the other way around. The US attacked Afghanistan to dismantle the terrorist network there and not as a part of any global plan to conquer a Muslim country. Afghanistan is an impoverished country and there is no evidence that the US has exploited any of its negligible resources.

Moreover, the Taliban regime was very isolated in the world and was disliked even by its immediate Muslim neighbours including Iran, which at one time was threatening to go to war against it. It is a fact that the Taliban regime was practising a narrow-minded version of Islam that was anti-women, anti-entertainment and anti-education. Its ouster has been welcomed by large sections of Afghan society, above all, by Afghan women who had been virtually under house arrest during its rule.

The US invasion of Iraq that followed in 2003 has been rightly condemned by most observers as a unilateral use of force, based on false pretexts. Its real objective was the ouster of the Saddam regime. However, it is worth noting that a recent poll in Iraq shows that nearly three-fourth of Iraqis approve the US action in removing Saddam. The Shia majority had been badly suppressed by the Saddam regime, as were the Kurds, and it is understandable that they would welcome the change. These two groups are now ruling Iraq for the first time in history.

The resistance to the US military occupation seems to be coming from Islamic extremists like Al-Zarqawi and foreign suicide bombers. They have killed far more Iraqis than the US-led coalition forces in a ferocious guerilla war in which many innocent foreign hostages, including Pakistanis, have been executed.

It is notable that the Iraqi government, elected in free elections and recognised by the Arab League, the OIC and the UN, has not demanded the withdrawal of US forces. Nor has this demand been made by either the Kurds nor any top Shia leaders like Ayatollah Sistani or Al-Hakim. For these reasons, one must question the impression of many people in Pakistan, particularly the Islamic extremists, that the fight in Iraq is a war of national resistance and that most Iraqis are engaged in fighting the foreign troops.

What is the way out? : Crisis in the Muslim World-II

Part 2

WITH regard to the Iran crisis, the issue here is that the US and several other countries are convinced that Iran is trying to achieve nuclear weapons capability. Iran claims that this is not so and that it is only seeking enrichment under the provisions of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to which it is a signatory.

Clearly, this is a technical issue that could have been settled by the International Atomic Energy Agency experts, operating without hindrance in Iran.

After long negotiations, the IAEA director-general, Mohamed ElBaradei, reported to the UN Security Council on April 28 that “gaps remain in the Agency’s knowledge with respect to the scope and content of Iran’s centrifuge programme.” Therefore, “the Agency is unable to make any progress in its efforts to provide assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran. After more than three years of Agency efforts to seek clarity about all aspects of Iran’s nuclear programme, the existing gaps in knowledge continue to be a matter of concern.”

ElBaradei added that any progress in that regard “requires full transparency and active cooperation by Iran if the Agency is to understand fully the 20 years of undeclared nuclear activities by Iran.” He regretted that “these transparency measures are not yet forthcoming.”

The IAEA is an international body and its findings are not controlled by the US. Several Islamic and other countries are represented in the top body of the IAEA and it reflects the thinking of the international community. It is also notable that, apart from the IAEA, Iran has so far turned down all proposals for a compromise made by the EU as well as Russia.

In this context, mention should also be made of a unanimous statement issued by the UN Security Council on March 30. It noted with “serious concern the many IAEA reports and resolutions related to Iran’s nuclear programme”. It expressed further concern that the IAEA had reported that it was “unable to conclude that there are no undeclared nuclear materials or activities in Iran.” The Security Council called upon Iran to reestablish “full and sustained suspension of all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities.” Iran rejected this Security Council decision.

For the last four decades, the world community has been unanimous in opposing nuclear proliferation. Nuclear weapons can do horrific damage not only in the region in which they are used but also far beyond it. They represent a doomsday scenario and everyone has a stake in opposing a nuclear war. No doubt, a discriminatory situation has emerged in which a handful of countries hold nuclear weapons while the overwhelming majority does not possess them. But the five great powers have shown by their actual conduct that they have a sense of responsibility in the matter and have never allowed their differences to reach a point of no return.

Israel is believed to be in possession of nuclear weapons since the 1960s, but has never threatened to use them. The nuclear weapons developed by India and Pakistan have served as a deterrent against war and it can be said that both of these countries have also shown a sense of responsibility.

On the other hand, Iran has said repeatedly that Israel should be wiped out from the face of the earth. The Iranian leadership keeps using war-like rhetoric. Israel clearly sees a nuclear Iran as a mortal threat to its own existence and would probably make a preemptive strike to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities before the latter acquires nuclear weapons. The US looks upon Iran as a rogue state, which cannot be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons. President Bush is clearly determined to act against Iran if diplomacy fails. Probably any American president would resort to military action to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power.

These seem to be the ground realities. Becoming a nuclear power has become a matter of national prestige for Iran, but one would hope that its leaders would keep in view the supreme national interests of their country, the foremost of which is Iran’s physical survival. No doubt, Iran has military capability of its own and can inflict considerable damage on US interests in the region, but in the process, Iran itself could be seriously harmed.

A choice might have to be made by Tehran: nuclear capability or the prospect of serious harm to the whole country. The rational decision, surely, would be to avoid the latter option. The extremists in Muslim societies, including Pakistan, who are egging on the Iranians to defy the US and the IAEA on the nuclear issue, need to ponder if they are acting in the best interests of their brother Muslims in Iran.

The need, therefore, is to find a negotiated settlement of the Iranian crisis before it is too late. This would require a sense of responsibility on all sides and a willingness to make compromises. Hopefully, incentives will be given to persuade Iran not to go beyond acquiring nuclear energy for peaceful purposes under IAEA supervision.

Let us now turn to the internal crisis that is tearing apart many Muslim societies at present. No doubt, the struggle between the traditionalists and modernists has been a part of human experience all over the world. What gives this struggle in Muslim societies a unique character is the recent tendency of the traditionalists to move towards extremism, militancy and even terrorism.

This is what has spawned Al Qaeda and Al Zarqawi, the Taliban, the Lashkar-i-Jhangvi, Lashkar-i-Taiba and so many other militant organisations. They resort to violence against all perceived enemies, internal or external. Murders, bombings and sabotage are a part of their operations. In ideological terms, they promote a fanatical, narrow-minded version of Islam. They oppose dissent and free debate and promote authoritarianism in all forms. Their model remains the ousted Taliban which had earned notoriety all over the world due to its observant policies that even prescribed the size of the beard that all Muslim men must keep!

It is generally accepted that the majority of Muslims are tolerant. The question arises as to how then the extremists have been able to attract support. It seems that the external crisis has fuelled the internal crisis. The extremists demonise the perceived enemy: the US, the West, India and others. They seek to convince the believers that they have to hit back through any means that are possible. A jihad has to be fought to redress the grievances of the Muslims.

Though suicide is prohibited in Islam, it is amazing that the extremists have been able to find a religious sanction for suicide bombers who have emerged as their main weapon. They argue that the suicide bomber is really like a soldier fighting the enemy and laying down his life. He would become a martyr and go straight to paradise where wonderful gifts would be showered on him or her. This martyr complex has been a part of Islamic history, but never before has it been used as a tactic of warfare.

In this emotion-charged atmosphere, any advice for restraint is dismissed as cowardice, and those pleading objectivity are dubbed as American or Zionist agents. The fanatics do not like opposition and their response can come in the form of the bullet or some other form of intimidation. This is symptomatic of the internal crisis that has the potential of crippling Muslim societies and taking them back to mediaeval times.

The tribal areas of Pakistan, like Waziristan, seem to be increasingly affected by the jihad phenomenon. The Taliban have had tribal and blood links in the tribes who live on both sides of the border. This is very likely the reason why the Taliban are making something of a comeback in the Pakhtoon tribal belt, after their rout in 2001. They have profited from the wave of anti-Americanism sweeping Muslim societies which is bringing new recruits to the ranks of militant groups.

Those advocating the jihadist course need to ponder if their line of action can succeed. Can the US, India or any other state be brought down through suicide bombings and sabotage? On the contrary, every terrorist act mars the image of Islam and increases the anger and determination of the affected countries to crack down harder on Islamic militants. Those extremist Muslim circles advocating a clash with the West or Israel or any other state need to understand that the Muslim world, at present, has neither the military capability nor the organisation to take on these powers.

In order to confront the West, or any other adversary, the Muslim world must first set its own house in order, better its economic performance, acquire the latest technology and forge unity in its ranks. This is not the case at the present time and the Muslim world will be at a serious disadvantage in any clash with the US or other adversaries. Those who, through fiery rhetoric, are urging the faithful to adopt confrontationist policies are doing no service to Islam.

There are just grievances of the Muslim world that need to be addressed. This can best be done through skilled diplomacy and negotiations. With China and Russia around, there is much room for manoeuvre for the Muslim countries. In the meanwhile, the goodwill of the vast majority of countries should be obtained by repairing the damage done to the name of Islam by rabid mullahs and terrorists like Osama bin Laden and Al-Zarqawi. The influence of the religious extremists has to be countered through the spread of modern education, by improving living standards and by establishing more linkages with the rest of the world through cultural exchanges and easier travel.

In Pakistan, the mainstream parties ought to understand the grave threat posed to civil society by religious extremists. They must not make any political move that strengthens the hands of the extremists. Any alliance with the extremists e.g. to secure the ouster of the present regime would only work to the advantage of the extremists. In time, it is almost certain that they would turn on their allies from the mainstream parties for whom they would never have any sympathy.—Concluded

The writer is a former ambassador.

__________________
My ALLAH it is enough for my respect that I m "Your" person & it is enough for my pride that "You" are my GOD."You" are exactly the way I desire.Thus please mould me the way "You" desire.