|
War of
Language and Culture: Islamism vis-à-vis Americanism Dr. Maimul Ahsan Khan [Please note- This is a draft-chapter of an
upcoming book and no one should cite/quote anything from this article until it
appears in its final form in the book. Comments/Suggestions regarding the
constructs and any other issues are welcome. Email- maimulkhan@msn.com] “This is not a just peace,
but it is more just than continuation of the war. In the situation as it is,
and in the world as it is, a better peace could not be achieved.” – by Alija Izetbegovic
just after the signing the accord,
Dayton Peace Treaty, 1995 Conflicting
Perception of Right and Wrong: Paradigm Problems After If ten percent of
Americans face economic hardship in their life, then ninety percent Arabs
have been suffering endemic economic problems in their life. Muslims and
Arabs in general take most Americans as extremely promiscuous in their sexual
behavior unacceptable for any “decent human being.” On the other
hand, Americans think that most Arabs are polygamous and abusers of their
Muslim women. Moreover, both sides actively propagate “formulas of
sexual relations” to solve the problems of their perceived enemies in
culture and way of life. Both sides have their own conflicting approach to
consumerism. President George W.
Bush has declared many times that the Arab and Muslim terrorists had attacked
in the soil of There is no
hesitation in the mind of the In the ideological
battles between the American government and Muslim masses, the identity of
“enemy-terrorist” has been lost long ago. Because of
“ill-fated” Muslim governments and their unwise and subservient
position in global and regional politics, identity of “enemy-combatant”
was suppressed. Moreover, if you wish to fight your enemies in
somebody’s house you need to get some kind of permission from the
inhabitants of that house. The For most Muslims,
“Western modernization” programs in the Muslim world fall short
of any genuine democratization and many Muslims strongly believe that
Westerners have either been suffering from colonial mentality or perverted
promiscuous sexuality or vulgar consumerism. On the other hand, Westerners
accuse Muslims for being polygamous or abuser of their own women folk. With
such a dramatically opposite perception of right and wrong, no amount of
Arabic or English language knowledge would be helpful to mitigate any
conflicting issues between the US and Arabs. Most attackers of September 11
were well verse of English language and Western culture than any group of
Arabs and Muslims living in the Muslim world. Issues of conflicts here are
not of literary character as many official spokesmen tend to believe or
explain. If a Muslim would
preach “Islamic polygamy or Quranic criminal
justice” to solve all sexually related problems, crimes, and diseases
in any Western country, he or she might be persecuted for violation of the
law of the land. But in most Muslim countries “Muslim
secularists” insist both at official and unofficial levels that
“Western promiscuous sexual way of life” would solve all problems
and crimes in the Muslim societies. Leader like Saddam and his sons had
become the symbol of that “persistent Western behavior” in
traditional Muslim society like No type of
Islamists or radical Islamic group, including Al Qaeda
never had been supportive to Bathism of any kind.
Organization like Al Qaeda was a serious enemy for Bathism both in religious and political terms. There was
no way for Ayatullahs or any Usama-like
groups that they would subscribe something common ideologically with Bathism or Arab nationalism of any kind. But because of
so-called American pragmatism, the When Ariel Sharon
declares that Israel has every right to attack anywhere in the Arab and
Muslim world to safeguard his country and government, then Arabs retaliate by
saying that they have every right to use any means to hit back the aggressor
or enemy. This dangerous strategy of Ariel At different stages
of history, especially during 1960s and 1970s small African countries like Most Third World
countries has been facing challenges in reforming existing legal and economic
systems and Muslims were blamed for stagnation because of absence of
“religious reformation” in the Muslim world. Religious
reformation is the West has give birth to a rise of Protestantism in many
countries in the Christian world. But Protestantism alone can not explain
“religious reformation” or revitalization process in the
Christian communities around the world. Many aspects of Christian reformism
are deeply related to the basic “Western religious dogmas and world-view”
of Christian churches. “To be sure,
many of the trends in Western civilization worked adversely to Protestantism,
as they did to other forms of the faith. Some of the programmes
for the reorganization of society, such as anarchism and Marxist socialism,
were frankly anti-Christian. The drift of intellectuals away from the faith
was seen in traditionally Protestant peoples as well as those of Roman
Catholic and Orthodox background. ….The reason for the greater success
of Protestantism in the nineteenth century were complex. Some of them are in
part conjectural or at lest debatable. One of them obviously was the fact, to
which we have already called attention, that it was the predominantly
Protestant Great Britain and United States which had the largest increase in
wealth, population, and territory.” [2] Dramatic increase
in wealth and territory of most Western powers and governments has resulted
from industrial revolution and colonized systems introduced and sustained by
them. All Since Christianity
lost its appeal as a state ideology to most Westerners, colonial powers could
not play “Christian card” aggressively in politics of From the period of
Christian reformism to the Bolshevik Revolution, Christianity had lost its
domineering role in public affairs of the West gradually. It did not happen
just because of some new articulation of Christian ideas of God and church.
Religious reformative process cannot succeed in any sociopolitical and
economic vacuum; it proceeds from one step to another. Some religious reform
succeeds in the face of great lose of the followers within their own
communities. Religious reformism within the Christian communities is not an exception
to that general rule. Step by step Christian religious reformism has passed
through different stages to empower Westerners and defeat others in
ideological battles and trade wars. “They were in
territories which had not been submerged by the Moslem wave which had reached
a fresh crest in fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Moreover, they were in
the regions from which the discoveries, growth in commerce, and colonial
empire-building were to come during the same era….Thus Spain was the
earliest to feel the full impact of the Catholic Reformation, and the height
of the Spanish reformation coincided with the period when that real was the
foremost European state in military might and in territorial expansion in the
New World….in France the Catholic Reformation reached its crest about
the time when French hegemony was attained in Western Europe, in England the
Protestant Reformation roughly paralleled advances in commerce, the
beginnings of overseas colonization, ….in Russia the most stirring religious
movements were when that country was recovering from its Time of
Trouble….” [3] Describing
Christian religious reformation as a rosy and easy, many Western and Muslim
secular observers demand a quick and dramatic “Islamic religious
reformation” in the Muslim world. The fifteenth century was very
important for Christian reformation and we can regard the Spanish Inquisition
against Jews and Muslims also a part and problem of Christian religious
reformation. Forceful conversion of Jews and Muslims into Christianity did
not bring any real success for Christians. But Muslim dominated History does not
claim that Muslim rulers in “The Easter
shores of the Doctrinally Islam
does not endorse any form of Papacy or institutionalized clergy; according to
the main teaching of the Quran, Islamic societies
must be egalitarian with a loose kind of federal or confederate system of
governance for all. That is why, until recent time institutional corruption
within the Muslim communities was not a great concern for reformers.
Moreover, individually many Muslim religious leaders could voice the dissent
and opposition to the rulers. Even the colonial rule in the Muslim world did
not make Muslim nations completely corrupted. It is the nation-state-system,
which brought Muslim societies under institutionalized corrupted system. Financial
corruption is almost a universal phenomenon in the present-day Muslim world.
Institutional corruption is so endemic in most Muslim countries that state
machinery has become dysfunctional. Not the secular circles, but religious
groups have started to voice against the visible corruption of the Muslim
elite. Military takeover of state powers in many Muslim countries has been
orchestrated with a slogan of anti-corruption drive against seating
government. Thus Muslim world came to an age of governance can be called
“militarily-controlled democracy.” From When both secular
and religious militarily-controlled regime has failed in most Muslim countries
to bring any substantial change in any important Muslim government and public
life, then the appeal for “Islamic revolution” has surfaced
within religiously oriented Muslim political parties. Westerners were quite
unaware about that appeal of Islamic revolution to the minds of many Million
Muslims around the world. The 1979 Islamic revolution of During the
nineteenth century, students of many religious educational institutions had
protested against the Ottoman rulers in the present-day Islamic legitimacy
has received more prominence than political justification of power.
Discredited and corrupted political and judicial systems have crated a
greater opportunity to appeal to the causes of Islamization
of prevailing rundown Muslim systems. As a result, most Muslim politicians
have been increasingly using Islamic justification to popularize their
policies. But that does not mean that sociopolitical and economic factors are
less important then religious notions for reformation of any state system.
“The techniques through which Shari’a
was derived from the divine sources and the ways in which its fundamental
concepts and principles were formulated are clearly the product of the
intellectual, social, and political processes of Muslim history.” [5] Economic and
political disputes between Islamic and secular political forces within Muslim
communities have been playing much more important role than religious
disputes. Student demonstrations against government of Islamic “The modern
history of the Middle East, according to a convention accepted by most
historians of the region, begins in 1798, when the French Revolution, in the
persons of General Napolean Bonaparte and his
expedition, arrived in Egypt, and for the first time subjected one of the
heartlands of Islam to the rule of a Western power and the direct impact of
Western attitude and ideas. Interestingly, this aspect of the French
occupation was seen immediately in Apparently here all
historical facts and explanations are correct. But the Egyptians nor Ottomans
were not concerned or did not have time to think about revolutionary ideas
coming from French or Frenchmen, as Muslims in general were already deeply
perturbed by the foreign military aggression in their traditional lands.
Moreover, it was not the lesson of the French Revolution to occupy Muslim
peoples and their resources to liberate and emancipate Frenchmen or
Christians under the rule of monarchial absolutism. Napolean
Bonaparte himself rejected most of the lessons of the French revolution and
in bailing out his country from endemic economic crisis and political
instability did used his military attack on Napolean Bonaparte did warn the Egyptians that
the British colonial empire would occupy Egypt as London did in Muslim India
and declared himself as a liberator of Egypt and printed the entire Quran from modern press brought with him from Paris. Many
gestures of Napolean Bonaparte to the Egyptians
might be genuine. But how Muslims in general and the Egyptians in particular
would accept a foreign military occupier as liberator? Muslims have never got
any credible answer to this question from any Western military or colonial powers.
Muslims needed to know the answer to the question through the dynamics of
military and ideological battles against the Western powers. Napolean Bonaparte’s easy military victory over The Egyptian
military commanders at the time did not understand the formidable force led
by Napolean Bonaparte that they had been facing in
their own land. Muslim causalities in the warfront with Napolean’s
army were many thousand times more than in French army. Since then
configuration between Muslim and Western military forces and causalities in
any given conflicts have never changed. Muslim armies have always been
defeated and humiliated in all battles against non-Muslim armies around the
world. But every time Muslim army was defeated, ordinary Muslim folks have
suffered from colossal damages of war and a section of Muslim elite have
joined their Western counterparts to share the war booties in the Muslim
world. And subsequently, with unprecedented sacrifices of Muslim lives and
resources, Muslim masses have driven out the foreign military forces from
their traditional lands. This cycle of military battles and violent way of
settling disputes between Muslims and westerners have ultimately made the
Muslim world impoverished and dependent on the West. Muslim nations
could escape from such eventuality if they were united on the question of
military attacks and violence between themselves. After the withdrawal of Napolean’s army from Who is the Enemy of
Democracy and Islam? “Islam does
appear to provide a practical political alternative as well as secure
spiritual niche and psychological anchor in a turbulent world.” –
by Hrair Dekmejian in The
Anatomy of Islamic Revival Both Islamists and Muslim secularists are quick to find
their enemies at home and abroad. Warring ideological fractions within Muslim
societies see their own perceived ideological state as an enemy for people of
other faiths and ideologies. Muslim secularists demand democratic state, but
don’t see any place for Islamists in their proposed system of
governance. Similarly Islamists call for an Islamic State and fail to give an
idea how secular political forces in the country would be accommodated in the
system. Very often Muslim secularists and Islamists share the same fear of
extinction and persecution leading to their physical elimination from public
institutions. Neither democratic nor Islamic system of governance in the
Muslim world did receive any strong harmonization process to reconcile
political disputes between rival groups.
A typical Western democratic system not necessarily
indicates to any definite ideological statehood. All rival political forces
under different constitutional systems are allowed to fight for power through
elections. The rules for political games are very similar to that of
playgrounds, theaters, and circuses. Competing parties are allowed to have
plain fields and make use of same rules to demonstrate their capabilities and
defeat the rival. Once game is over and the scores are established, rival
parties go home with their result and take preparation for the next game. In
the West politics is neither a religious war nor battles for existence; it is
a process of power sharing at governmental levels. “With a little imagination one may discern the
same feature in other aspects of Western culture – in democratic
politics and in team games, both of which require the cooperation, in harmony
if not in unison, of different performers playing different parts in a common
purpose. In parliamentary politics and team games, there is a further
cooperation in conflict – rival parties or teams, striving to defeat
their opponents, but nevertheless acting under an agreed set of rules, and in
an agreed interval of time.” [7] Though this democratic culture has become part and parcel
of Western politics, but it has never been practiced at international arena
to resolve disputes between states. In international relations between the
states, military force has remained the most important factor to resolve any
dispute. The practice of the principle of “Might is Right” was
and is so prevalent that international institutions have failed to make
democratic and diplomatic means a viable alternation to military method of
conflict resolution. The outbreak of two world wars was the outcome of that
phenomenon. But the emergence of the League of Nation and United Nations is
also can be regarded as one of the consequences of world war. Turkish
involvement in the First World War was one of the last unwise decisions of
the Ottomans, who had failed to figure out their military and diplomatic
position at the global stage. Since then Muslim states either are incapable of
formulating their own political and diplomatic strategies at global and
regional levels or miscalculate their military strength vis-à-vis their
enemies. Most Muslim governments don’t have any genuine popular mandate
to govern their own people and thus use arbitrary power over state
institutions and public treasures. This prevailing situation provides ample
opportunities for Western powers and business circles to manipulate Muslim
affairs and resources around the world. A genuine interest to uphold
democratic institutions and values in the Muslim states by the Western world
could make a lot of difference in this undemocratic practice at national and
international levels. “Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld
declined on Thursday to criticize a senior Pentagon intelligence official who
has told evangelical gatherings that Muslims worship an “idol”
and not “a real God,” and instead praised the general’s
“outstanding” military record. Lt. Gen. William Boykin of the
Army, deputy under secretary of defense for intelligence and war-fighting
support, has used speeches at churches and prayer breakfasts to portray the
American battle with Muslim radicals as a fight against “Satan,”
saying militant Islamists sought to destroy General Boykin is not only a three star general, he is a
deputy under secretary of defense of the “Not long ago Since the Such a conspiracy theory is nothing new. During the Soviet
era, Russian Communist leaders used to scare their people by telling that
Western capitalists had infiltrated at every stage of the Soviet society,
while “communist corruption” was the main reason of the rise of
“wild capitalism” in Collaborating with Muslim ruling elite, Westerner leaders
have been blaming Muslims for being hostile to the Western and US policies.
Many unwise and shortsighted Western and U.S foreign policies are the main
cause of the rise of “Islamic fundamentalism” in many Muslim
countries. Instead of changing foreign policies, Western leaders tend to get
away with their divisive policies against Muslims and condemn the Muslim
world for its growing fanaticism and extremism. On other hand, Muslim leaders
are not addressing their own societal, political, religious, and economic
problems to defuse tensions within their countries.[13]
For Muslims, this is not a new strategy at all; they are
very familiar with such a political strategy. Most Muslim secular and
autocratic governments charge opposition forces as being unpatriotic and
treasonous. Muslim religious leaders also do the same mistake in their
judgment of opposition forces. This is a propaganda ploy shared by both
religious and secular leaders of many Muslim countries. In the Muslim world,
if you don’t support any “Islamic political party” you
might be labeled as anti-Islamic, while if you are a member of any
religiously oriented group, you would be regarded as fanatic and extremist.
Just wearing any Muslim dress might be symbolized as being fanatic or
terrorist. “The four women were originally charged with
attempting to overthrow the Turkish government, but the charges were changed
to “violating the gathering and demonstration act”. Turkish law
upholds a ban on the hijab
in universities, higher educational establishments and Islamic colleges.
Harassment of women workers who wear the headscarf is also common in public
offices, hospitals and government buildings.” [14] Muslims have never imagined that they might have to
embrace similar eventuality in the West as well. In the West, for a quite
while, officially government did not try to divide people in ethnic,
religious, and racial lines. Though racism all along remained an underlying
social and political phenomenon in many Western societies, including the Most Muslim societies do not have any apparent problems
with racism as religious and political philosophy. But institutional
discrimination against the political opponents is a common place in the
Muslim world. Along with endemic economic problems and state-sponsored
corruption, now minorities have been facing many difficulties unknown in the
past. Secularism in the hands of Muslim nationalist governments has failed to
bring any remarkable success in any Muslim country. In contrast to that,
secularism in many Western countries has contributed positively in bringing
together peoples of different faiths and ethnicity to the common places of
productivity and consumption. Muslim secularists have failed to popularize a
Western-type democracy in the Muslim world because they characterized Islam
as an anti-democratic religious and political ideology. Under President G. W.
Bush, During the entire colonial ear Unlike the Europeans and Russians, Americans got directly
involved in Muslim affairs without any necessary home works to be done for
the job. Moreover, American direct involvement in Muslim affairs around the
world is of very recent origin. A very few Americans had direct encounters
with Muslim masses. American leaders had only direct contact with ruling
Muslim elite, who is incapable of presenting Muslim case to Westerners.
Moreover, being placed in vantage position, Muslim rulers did not feel any
necessity to represent Muslim peoples in any credible and genuine ways. For
the European colonialists, Muslim peoples and lands were the softest targets
for the implementation of colonial rule and Americans had found Muslims even
far more vulnerable during post-Cold war period and thought it would be
easier for For most Arabs, military might of the Israeli army
is indeed a formidable force, but for the Palestinians it became an
imperative to fight the Israelis to safeguard their lives, liberty, and
dignity.[16]
At the beginning the Israel-Palestine conflict had very little to do with
religious issues; it its core it was a territorial dispute.[17]
The same is true with India-Pakistan conflict over Kashmiri territories.
Religious explanations of such conflicts help the conflicting parties to
generate public support and sacrifice for their causes. “It is hard to know what is more
alarming — a toxic statement of hatred of Jews by the Malaysian prime
minister at an Islamic summit meeting this week or the unanimous applause it
engendered from the kings, presidents and emirs in the audience….When
Israeli officials noted that such talk brought Hitler to mind, the assembled
leaders were mystified….Sympathy for the Muslims’ plight must not
be confused with the acceptance of racism. Most Muslims have indeed been
shoddily treated — by their own leaders, who gather at feckless summit
meetings instead of offering their people what they most need: human rights,
education and democracy.” [18] As Muslims Malaysian are probably the most moderate
people and compare to many other Muslims, they were well served by their
leaders for last few decades. Along with many other Muslim nations,
Malaysians got so angry and surprised that most Westerners don’t
understand the agony and sufferings of the Muslims around the world. It is
true that many religious circles within Muslim communities have mystified
many Islamic doctrines to be used against their perceived enemies. Religious
leaders of non-Islamic nations also can be blamed for such indoctrination
process within their communities. Moreover, racism, anti-Semitism, and
Hitlerism are much more prevalent in other nations than in the Muslims.
Muslims are deprived of human rights, education, and democratic rule, and as
a result there is now a serious backlash of Muslim nations against the West.
Muslims don’t believe that Hitlerism or Stalinism can inspire them or
can bring any benefit to their struggle for emancipation, they rather feel
strongly that many Western leaders such as Rumsfeld
and General Boykin are real shadows of Hitler and Stalin. In fact, after
American-led military action in For many Muslims, quality of leadership of President G.
W. Bush and Saddam Hussein is not of that sharp contrast as many might have
thought in the West. But there is a great distinction between the two. G. W.
Bush could not take his presidency granted or made it as a life-long gift
from God. But G. W. Bush and his folks at White Houses could claim that as a
devoted Christian he was destined to lead wars in We are not asking
right question to find out pathways for Muslim states towards democracy and
rule of law. Very often Westerners and Muslim secularists try to impose or
replace a system by another imported from outside. The very virtue of the
democratic rule is that in the name of democracy no system of governance can
be imposed on any country or people. Islam as a religion does not allow
anybody to force others to accept any religion, including itself. But Muslims
very often does not want to grant right to its own co-worshippers to reject
this or that branch of religiosity. But the fact remains that a Muslim cannot
be a shia
and sunni
at the same time. Rejection of either or both cannot make a follower of Islam
less Muslim than a Shia
or Sunn. But the problem has not been
resolved once for all and disputes over different “Islamic political
ideologies” still remain within the domain of religiosity, while some
of these political issues needed to be transferred in the areas of legality
and other to be kept in the domain of morality. “If Scandinavians can combine liberal democracy with
socialist principles, and the English can combine a formal Protestant
theocracy with a practical liberal democracy, can Muslims combine liberal
democracy with Islamic principles? Can islamocracy be a new vision of
governance?… What is the difference between Islamocracy
and Islamic theocracy? We view the concept of “Islamocracy”
as a synthesis between Islam and democracy. The segment “Isla” is from Islam. The segment of “ocracy” is from democracy. The letter
“m” is shared by the words Islam and demos. The phenomenon of islamocracy has been evolving for centuries.
Today the Islamic Republic of Iran as a system of government has received
less attention from democratic thinkers than it deserves. It is true that the
theocratic element is still top heavy, and the powers of the clerics
excessive; the Islamic Republic's system is still a fascinating combination
of mass electoral politics and theocratic governance. Is the theocracy in The so-called Islamocracy is
viewed as Islamic democracy. In the past we heard a lot about Islamic
socialism in the writings of Muslim intellectuals, who have failed to bring
any long lasting substance to human rights and rule of law. As a result,
Islamic socialism has created more problems than it solved. The socialist
pattern of government and economy put many Muslim countries in shamble and
disarray. The Scandinavian or Canadian system of democracy does not
propagate any overly socialist principles of governance and economy, but
accommodate some positive aspects of socialism in distributing national
wealth and public good among citizens. For example, in a Scandinavian system
the ration between the highest and lowest wage is strictly controlled, and
thus gap between the rich and poor is very low. On the other hand, such a
ration is not controlled at all in most developed countries, and now the
highest paid jobs in the Most democratic slogans in the Muslim world still remain
rhetoric in the speeches of politicians, who maintain their exploitative
economic agenda to be fulfilled for their vested interests in the resources
of Muslim states and peoples. At present countries like “The question now facing Afghans is: how to devise a
constitution that combines the country’s deep-rooted Islamic traditions
and its aspirations for democracy?… The country will be governed by
civil laws as long as they are in keeping with Islam. The draft contains the
same language as the country's 1964 Constitution to guarantee that “in During the post-colonial ear, Muslims had to recognize
Islam as one of the vital ingredients of their state ideology. Giving
recognition to Islam as a state religion, Muslims wanted to give a loud and
clear signal to outsiders, especially to the former European colonialists,
that they were no more subjugated by alien military forces. But slogans for
“dar al Islam” have created more
confusion than they had solved. Creating a country like Pakistan in 1947,
British educated Indian Muslims resorted Islam to justify their political
power and pretended that they were the founders of a newly established dar al Islam, while as a reality
nation-state is very antithetical to the concept of Caliphate. The Saudi statehood had faced similar problem since
its inception in 1934. Arguments against and for a Wahhabi
state had overshadowed the confusion shrouded the Saudi statehood. There was and is a serious dilemma in the minds of many
million Muslims how to strike balance between the reality brought by
nation-state ear and conceptualized universal Islamic brotherhood. In most
cases, modern Muslim rulers has been using Islam as a propaganda ploy to
deceive their constituents from a fundamental basic right to accept and
reject governing policies and their proponents. Taking their ruling status as
a life long privilege and “God-gifted” prize, Muslim ruling elite
has been violating a very fundamental teaching of Islam, which is very
categorical in rejecting hereditary or monarchial and totalitarian or
dictatorial system of governance. As a cover up of their religious propaganda
ploy, Muslim rulers declared themselves as protectors and custodians of Islam
and its cities or holy places. Muslim leaders did promised to their people
that Muslim nation states would serve the interests of perceived united
Muslim polity prescribed by Shariah. Muslim nation-states neither have evolved nor created to
adapt or adjust religious postulates in a contemporary state system of
governance. They were established to defuse unmanageable tension between
colonialists and aspiring Muslim leaders to be the masters of their people.
Ideologically Islam does not allow Muslim rulers to be the masters of their
people; rulers were told to be the servants of the people. Here again reality
of nation-state system of governance sharply differs from pious religious
desire to be freed from all bondage imposed by a group of people over others.
The tension and conflict between religious commitment to universal Islamic polity
and divisive character of nation-state uphold by ruling elite is so intense
that political life of many Muslim countries has been becoming a source
“religious ideological inferno” for all living there. “Despite the supposed religious unity of all Muslims
and the consequent theoretical universal application of Shari’a
throughout the Muslim world, the Muslim peoples are now organized in
nation-states and are likely to remain so for the foreseeable future.” [21] Apart from political deception and religious pretension of
modern Muslim leaders, much talked Islamization
process stumbled with endemic corruption and economic crisis. So many Muslim
governments and institutions made the Muslim governance costly and
unmanageable state machinery led governments to resort violence against one
another. Domestically that policy led to a creation of police states in the
Muslim world. Without solving the autocratic character of Muslim states,
Muslims were advised to separate state organs form church. Muslim masses did
not understand what does it means to have a secular state. Does it mean that
government can ignore more vigorously the demand of the people to make
governmental authorities honest and dedicated to the causes of the people?
For the Muslims, only way they could keep some influence over their state
policies is to keep the ruling elite in the line of Islamic obedience to
decency and humility. This is one of the reasons why Western secularism has
never witness any remarkable popularity in any Muslim country. Not the conflicts between Islamism and secularism were the
major issues in the Muslim polity, dichotomies over the issues of the public
law of shariah
and individual rights needed to be addressed first. To resolve this problem
some Muslim authors try to draw some definite separating lines between the
doctrinal legal issues from changeable Shariah prescriptions. But
keeping the domain of the Public law of Shariah wide and rigid, no dividing lines between different schools of
law within Muslim communities would help to resolve this problem. Mistakenly,
it is widely believed that democratization and Islamization
are the process diametrically opposite to each other. That is the key source
of tension within the Muslim states and beyond. Misgivings and grievances of
Muslim peoples against the former colonialists and Westerners are much deeper
and wider than one can perceive in the West. “I wish I could say that general understanding of
the Sudden collapse of Muslim government or military regime is
nothing new in Muslim history. In 750 c.e. the Abbassids being fearful of political instability had
moved the seat of Caliphate from Post-Saddam history witnessed a quite different story. But
the Bathist military general also tried to avoid
fighting with the How to Understand:
You are Either with Us or with Terrorists? AS the elephant is
powerless to think in terms of the ant, is spite of the best intentions in
the world, even so is the Englishman powerless to think in the terms of or
legislate for, the Indian.” – by Gandhi in Autobiography Much Western
scholarship about Muslims has undeniably come in connection with various
projects of colonial, imperial, or, nowadays, superpower influence. – by Noah Feldman in After Jihad: In the past only religious fanatics used to declare
that they fight their religious wars against the enemies of God and
ultimately God who gave the order to go to war. Thus success and failure does
not really matter for the warring parties. In modern days military forces do
not believe in any order from God and calculate their war strategy long
before any military operation. After Hitler’s army possibly again for
the first time the US-led army occupied Iraq in 2003 without any exist
strategy and definite plan to end the occupation. Hitler did not have any exist strategy or policy for his
military mission in other countries as he presumably prepared his army to
govern occupied territories. History could witness that in the process of
German occupation of If Muslims could be labeled as the supporters of Hitler,
then it is much easier job to make them supporters of Usama
and Saddam. Most credible surveys conducted in the Muslim world showed that
President Bush’s military mission in “The major influences on George W Bush’s
Pentagon and National Security Council were men such as Bernard Lewis and Fouad Ajami, experts on the
Arab and Islamic world who helped the American hawks to think about such
preposterous phenomena as the Arab mind and the centuries-old Islamic decline
which only American power could reverse. Today bookstores in the Th US-led military mission in Since the time of the declaration of war against Taliban,
just after Usama and Saddam are two sides
of “Arab phenomenon” of modern Muslim exigency. There is very
little common between them except that they speak Arabic and none of them had
any “Islamic education and upbringing.” Of course, their journey
to anti-American bloc had started with a close cooperation and collaboration
with CIA and powerful circles in In the past, MI5 or CIA could brush people like Usama and Saddam aside physically, politically or
otherwise according to any design set forth for their elimination. But
recently situation has changed. Despite the lose of many hundreds Iranian
Islamists during the 1979 Islamic revolution, a good number of Iranian
prominent religious leaders could successfully survived against American
policies of reversing the political development in that country. Usama and Saddam had never get
along with Shia
leaders of any kind. Like many Sunni
leaders, Usama did not buy any of the shiite
interpretation of Islamic doctrines. Usama’s
rejection to shiism
based on his religious beliefs and convictions. For Saddam neither Sunnism nor Shiism did
matter much, if no Iraqi used those “ideological Islam”[27]
against his regime. It came with a big surprise to Usama
and Saddam that Both Usama and Saddam used very
simple logic in their strategy and thought that they would never buy American
support for Muslims as Usama was an insignificant enemy
for the Americans. He did not have much credibility as a religious leader. As
a Mujahid-commander Usama
got some prominence in the inner circles of Pakistani military intelligence
and Afghan religious circles. Wahhabi leaders did
not like him for two reasons. Firstly, for the traditional Wahhabi religious circles he had no right to approach the
Quran and Sunnah directly
and was not entitled to give interpretations of those primary sources or
could not derive any fatwah
(religious edicts). Secondly, being Arab he did not give any special
attention to Arab problems, but rather saw Muslim problem in a more universal
way. For example, Usama was deeply concern about
the fate of dismantled Ottoman political seat for Muslim ummah, while present-day Arab
religious leaders take the Ottoman leaders as perverted Muslims. Until
American direct military mission in Neither Usama nor Saddam had any
legitimate rights to speak on behalf of ummah (world Muslim population). But because of American unpopular
military actions in Very often a Westerner asks how a peace loving Muslim can
support Usama or Saddam? Not many Muslims were supporters of them.
It is the American foreign policy drove millions of Muslims to the side of Usama or Saddam. For a long time prevailing international
order and inter-state Muslim politics did not allow to grow moderate Islamic
leadership in the Muslim world. Moreover, majority Muslims do not believe
that Usama’s people attacked the Washington did claim that it had clear prove that Al Qaeda had orchestrated attack on Twin Towers in New York
and then never had provide any prove as such, but presented a “left
over video” presumably prepared in some Afghan caves by Mullah
Omar’s people. Later on all proves came from the captured Muslim
militant leaders, who supposedly acknowledged their guilt to FBI or
interrogators. Americans hardly understand how their governmental policies
had discredited them in the eyes of peoples of the American leaders very often tend to establish that all
“Evils come from Muslim terrorists.” But Muslims have never subscribed
the American governmental definition of “Islamic Evil” and did
not by the ideas of infinite war between good and evil. The underlying
conflicts between Americans and Muslims cannot be characterized as war
between good and evil or Christianity and Islam; they are primarily conflicts
between economic and cultural perceptions and interests. “It’s not hard to understand why, Osama bin Laden, who became the world’s best-known
Muslim during the 1990s, declared that there is no path open to a believing
Muslim except jihad, or holy war, against the United States. Islamic
authorities who refuse to join him, bin Laden said, are betraying the faith.
At the same time, the few prominent Muslims who have disowned the terrorism
perpetrated in Islam’s name on September 11 and actively affirmed its
peaceful character have been drowned out by the silence of the many others
who have not, or who have in their confusion failed to condemn unequivocally
bin Laden’s acts.” [28] Trashing Islamic faiths and Muslim culture at governmental
levels, During the time of the 1979 Islamic revolution in The fundamentals of Islamic democracy and revolutionary
Islamic State are an oxymoron ideology for the Westerners. But not many
Americans are fully aware that secular leaders like Saddam or Musharraf are very dangerous oxymoron for any genuine
democratization process in the respective country. Elimination of Saddam from
power was a long cherished goal for kinds of Islamists in and around Anti-American stand of Saddam did strengthen his position
within many inner circles of Arab nationalists in and around Mistakenly it is believed in the West that only Ayatullahs or some Muslim religious leaders are only the
supporters of Islamic democracy. But many scientific surveys conducted in the
Muslim world demonstrate that overwhelming majority of Muslims support
democratization of their societies with a blend of Islamic values.[29]
Rightly or wrongly most Muslims find Western secularism or American democracy
a kind of vulgar, arrogant, and extremely consumer-driven ideology, which is
not suitable for Muslim societies. As a result, in post-Saddam Arab world has
started to witness a remarkable rise of popularity of the Islamists and
Islamic democracy. After the direct military occupation of “In the face of threats from the United States and
Israel, Syria seeks to forge nationalist sentiment with any means possible,
experts believe, including fostering the very brand of religious fundamentalism
that it once pruned so mercilessly….Hundreds of fundamentalist leaders
were jailed, many never seen alive again…Islamic activists make up the
biggest block of political prisoners, human rights activists say….Some
of the thousands of foreign students who studied in Syria have ended up as
suspects in various cases, the most prominent in the United States being
Capt. James J. Yee, the chaplain for the Guantánamo
prisoners accused of spying for Syria.” [30] For many Americans the 2003 Gulf War is the Third World
War and anyone who criticizes the Not many people in The recent religious intolerance of extreme nature within
Muslim communities is of recent origin largely because of prolonged colonial
rule over the Muslim world. The Americans hardly played any direct role in
that. But misguided There is an ongoing trade war between the “Consider the proposal on the Gold-based Trade
Payment Arrangements (GTPA) amongst Member States as an alternative mechanism
in international trade as a measure of trade settlement among countries of
the Organization with the view to expanding trade and economic
development.”[35] Unlike the Europeans, Muslims don’t have any
common currency of their own and unlike the Japanese or Chinese they
don’t have any say over the trade disputes with the Conflicts run
through the values of Marriage, Family, and Terrorism “It is your
Lord that knows you best; if He please, He grants you mercy, or if He please,
punishment: We have not sent you to be a disposer of their affairs for them.
…And say: “Truth has (now) arrived, and Falsehood perished: for
Falsehood is (by its nature) bound to perish. Quran,
“To seek
secular answers is simply to abandon the field to the fundamentalists, who
will succeed in carrying the vast majority of the population with them by
citing religious authority for their policies and theories. Intelligent and
enlightened Muslims are therefore best advised to remain within the religious
framework and endeavour to achieve the reforms that
would make Islam a viable modern ideology.” – by Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na’im
in the Introduction to The Second Message of Islam of Mahmoud
Mohamed Taha During last one hundred years Judeo-Christian tradition in
the Western hemisphere has changed significantly. Despite its underlying
religious character, the By the end of the twentieth century, American material
values and Muslim spiritual aspirations got into deep conflicts. Clash
between American and Muslim life-style and values could be avoided if American political leadership did acknowledge that to
fight “Islamic terrorism” it needs to build a solid alliance with
moderate Muslim forces around the world. But The cornerstone of Islamic civilization is the family
values and accountability of rulers to the ruled. The decadence of modern
Muslim societies on both accounts is so grave that there is no need to any
explanation why Muslims need to regain their lost values. But there is a
serious disconnect in a typical Muslim mind as regard to modern Muslim
decadence and its relation with economic performance of Muslim governments.
Muslim rulers and governments have been failing Muslim masses in economic and
political fronts and as a result Muslim masses do not feel any strong sense
of belongings to existing legal system. Moreover, many Muslims believe that
moral decadence of Muslim societies is the outcome of Western and American
domination over Muslim world. Individual liberty enjoyed by Westerners or Americans has
a great deal to do with economic dynamics of advanced Industrial society. But
with a similar type of industrial development and economic growth, Japanese
or South East Asian societies did not see a sharp deterioration of family
values and spiritual life. Muslims were fearful of Western or American sexism
and could not take any advantage of the rise of industrial powers in the No doubt that Muslim perception of good marriage and
family life is in sharp contrast with the Western understanding of equality
in sexual partnership within and outside marriage. But to say that lack of
participation of Muslim women in public workplace is the main cause of Muslim
backwardness in building industrial and urban society is the
oversimplification of this complex problem. “The rise of capitalism and the Industrial
Revolution brought challenges to traditional values and worldview that
encouraged achieved rather than ascribed status, individualism rather than
community, innovation instead of continuity with tradition, and increasingly
secular rather than religious social beliefs.” [39] Muslim secularists as a political and ideological force
did not contribute anything substantially to the economic life of Muslim
societies and tried to control the destiny of the majority Muslim population.
Westernisation of Muslim rulers made them so
selfish and arrogant that they either ignored or undermined the economic and
religious causes of Muslim public and collective life. Moreover, Muslim
secular forces artificially have stared to dictate Western sexual behavior
and attitude to the traditional Muslim societies and had adopted new laws
contrary to Islamic doctrines. Introduction of most secular laws regulating
family affairs in majority Muslim countries did not widen the scope of
individual liberty in general, but put men’s rights and obligations in
sharp conflicts with women’s emancipation. New liberal family laws
could be enacted and enforced if economic preconditions would not be created
in the first place. Political reforms could be helpful to bring progressive
changes in legal systems of Muslim nations, if those reforms were supported
by economic rationales. Westerners want to know why with almost same per capita
GDP Kuwaiti, Saudi and Qatari women don’t enjoy similar rights and
obligations as that of their counterparts in the Scandinavian countries. Most oil-rich Arab countries have no real national
economic dynamics to provide job to their own people. Moreover, most Arab
male population of those countries also does not contribute anything
substantial to economic life of their countries. Selling oil and gasoline to
the West, There are no Islamic provisions which bar Muslim women to
work at public or private sectors of economy. It is the monarchical or
dictatorial Arab governments, which stand against the Muslim women’s
emancipation. Voting rights to Muslim men and women could facilitate many
avenues for reforms of Arab societies. With successful political reforms
liberalization and democratization process could become a reality for Arab
states, which in turn could put up a resistance to any foreign domination and
hegemony in the region. Most Western powers are very selective in their wish
to see Arab and Muslim societies reformed to the better. “Many observers, such as Samuel Huntington, suggest
that there has been a religious revival in many poorer societies in recent
decades, especially among fundamentalist sects in Muslim societies, perhaps
as a backlash against the perceived threats of modern Western values to
traditional social norms and sexual mores….Divorce is an important
issue, especially in a few Catholic and many Muslim societies, where women
have limited or no legal rights to dissolve the marriage.” [40] Clash between Islamic family values and Western sexuality
is a real one. But politicization of this clash cannot solve any problem.
Muslim women need to explain Islamic religious and social norms for
themselves and find their own interpretation to assert their rights and
obligations. There is no way that one can think that Catholic and Islamic
laws of marriage and divorce have much in common in religious and legal
terms. But in reality many Muslim societies have practically behave like
Catholic or Mormon when it comes to the marriage and divorce. Without a free consent of either side a Muslim marriage
has no validity in the eyes of Islamic law. A Muslim woman can also initiate
divorce at any time and dissolution of marriage is rather very easy in Islam.
But when fifty per cent Muslim men are unemployed in most Muslim countries
and cannot afford to marry for the first time until they reach to their late
thirties, at that time we try to impose a Western-type family law on them and
accuse them for polygamy. Some isolated Quranic
verses have been interpreted so badly that angered huge number of Muslims
against secular perception of marriage and divorce. Many Westerners believe
that Muslim women has no real dignity and honor as a child, wife and mother
under Islamic law and they are tortured and beaten by their male counterparts
on daily basis. “Long before the All these success stories of Muslim women leaders have
been achieved because of their family connection. Unfortunately majority of
these Muslim women have proved themselves as inefficient or utterly
corrupted. Benazir Bhutto and Tansu
Ciller have established many “Muslim
records” of corruption and nepotism. Regarding others records of
corruption and nepotism have yet to be revealed and established. More
importantly, under the Muslim Women leadership none of the Muslim countries
has yet achieved anything remarkable in ongoing democratization process or
struggle for economic emancipation of majority downtrodden Muslims. In legal fronts, Muslim leadership both secular and
religious, do not fully appreciate the egalitarian nature of “Islamic
polity” and try to achieve their political or religious goals through
criminal justice. Entire propaganda over the disputes of Shriah centers around family
law and the prohibitive measures apparently set forth by the Quran. In real essence the Quranic
law proposes a very flexible legal philosophy by saying: “O you men!
Now Truth has reached you from your Lord! Those who receive guidance, do so
for the good of their own souls; those who stray, do so to their own loss:
and I am not (set) over you to arrange your affairs.” [42] This egalitarian Islamism has based on another universal Quranic Principle: La
ikra fid deen (there
is no compulsion in religion). Instead of using this “Quranic principle of secularism,” Muslim
ultra-secularists attack the Quran from left and
right and put all kinds of Islamists in enemy camp to democratization
process. Without respecting the main religious scripture of Muslims, the Quran, no Muslim governmental authority can hope to
achieve any remarkable progress in the fronts of economy or democracy. But
that does not mean that one has to buy all kinds of interpretation of the Quranic verses. For example, some people believe that
some Quranic verses can be interpreted to revive
slavery system and in support of beating wives by their husbands. Finding some verses in the Quran
permitting sexual relations between “master and slaves” outside
marriage, some interpreters think that these injunctions can be used in
support of Arab slavery system existed in pre-Islamic age. In reality many
verses of the Quran invited Muslims to set free the
slaves from bondage and urge Muslim men to many slave girls to make them
equal members within Islamic family system.[43]
In extreme situation when these goals could not be achieved, then to honor
the sexual need of bondage people, they and their Masters were allowed to
form families without formal marriages. Islamic marriage does not require any legal or formal
procedures; it is fully valid to take spousal relationships as private and
civil matters, which are devoid of all kinds of legal formalities under
supervision of court or church. Divorce methodologies are also intended to
keep the dissolution of marriage beyond the reach of state run judicial
system, but to be resolved through mediations represented by husband and
wife. Unfortunately, under secular Muslim leadership most legal reforms
intended to bring marriage and divorce issues under strict control of law. As
a reaction to that ongoing secularization process of family laws, most Muslim
fundamentalists now tend to impose “Islamic norms of family law”
on everybody living in the Muslim world. What Islamists need to appreciate that no Islamic norms
can be enacted without free consent of people or endorsement of public
opinion. Moreover, Westerners as people of other faiths or no religious
faiths are free to exercise their own freedom contrary to Islamic doctrines
of total prohibition of prostitution, pornography and so forth. Western
“care-free sex” has no place in Islamic values and Muslim family
law, and Muslims are seriously intimidated by “ Western promiscuous sexuality is also a part of freedom
guaranteed to non-believers or non-Muslims by the same God-Almighty, who has
prohibited Muslims to indulge in such activities. One of the main reasons of
hatred in hearts and minds of Muslims to the Westerners can be explained
through the dynamics of conflicts between Islamic morality and perceived
sexual perversion in the West. Moreover, Muslims are now fearful of being
swayed by Western sexual promiscuity promoted by Muslim secularists.
Politicization of such sensitive issues gave birth a hatred attitude within
the Muslim societies towards Westerners. Breakdown of family system would
cause more harm to the Muslim societies because there is no financial
security for overwhelming majority of the Muslims. Extended family system and arranged marriage traditions
very often provides much needed financial help and social security for newly
married couples. But to say that these are all Islamic norms of marriage and
divorce is indeed a very untrue statement. Muslim culture is not all about
Islamic norms all the time; a great deal of Muslim culture is related to the
prevailing tribal, sociopolitical and economic reality of the Muslim world.
Maybe transformation of tribal and agrarian society into industrialized and
urban state order would change many bad phenomena in Muslim culture. But to
argue that for industrialization and democratization to succeed in the Muslim
world, Muslim peoples have to abandon their basic Islamic heritage and
fundamentals of Muslim religiosity and culture is a wrong political
strategy. Fearing a whole scale secular onslaught on Islamic values
and Muslim culture, Islamists have been inviting Muslims to act upon the
following Quranic verse: “Let there arise
from you a group (groups) inviting to the khair (Islam), enjoining the Ma’ruf
(good) and forbidding the Munkar (evil). And it is they who are successful.” [44]
By doing so, if Islamists would see the economic and cultural conflicts
between Muslims and Americans as a religious war between Islamic heritage and
Judeo-Christian traditions, then they would commit the same mistake that
perpetrated to the Muslim world by Western wide sexism is only one of underlying features
of modern promiscuous society. Extreme feminism is just a side effect of
democracy and modernity, not necessary the most important goal of
consumerism. Empowerment of women folk in the West has also resulted into
many good things, including women voters’ support for peace and
environment. Western Women are now the most active supporters of principle of
non-aggression against “Studies of public opinion in the The rise of progressive voice for peace in the How the Muslims are very familiar with the history of colonial
military occupation of their countries. European colonial armies in the
Muslim world tried to convince Muslims that Europeans were there to safeguard
the interests of civilization, democracy, and human rights. The kind of
colonial civilization and Westerner enlightenment Muslim had witnessed during
colonial ear that made Muslims suspicious about the intentions of European
colonialists. Explaining their “good and civilized intentions,”
European colonialists used to compare them with Arab or Ottoman colonialists
of the Muslim world. If Arabs were the colonialists in the non-Arab Muslim
lands, then how come the Ottomans could colonize the Arabs? The European
colonialists wanted to play their colonial cards as many ways as possible and
thought that Muslim would not understand the main dynamic of colonial rule,
the principle of divide and rule. Unlike the European colonialists, post-independent
Americans did not have any deep-seated legacy of using the principle of
divide and rule as a constitutional provision. Americans fought and destroyed
the habitats of Red Indians to create a new homeland of their own. Unlike the
Europeans, Americans are much more straightforward in their policies of expansion
and domination over other people. In this regard Muslims and Americans are by
and large share similar type of mental make-up and ideological motivation.
But contrasting Islam with democracy, Conquering The American occupying force in Before withdrawing British military from different regions
of the Muslim world, In Islamic theories there is little scope to reject some
political or military missions just depending upon the intention of invaders
or conquerors. Every liberator or invader has to convey the message to the
people concerned in unambiguous terms. President G. W. Bush tried to be
candid as much as possible that in invading or occupying any Muslim country,
Washington did not have any intention to gain any economic benefits for
itself and just wanted to act as a liberator. But he has failed miserably to
explain why Saudis or North Koreans were not his direct military target and
Afghans and Iraqis had to be liberated first with the help of the British
royal army. “According to the New York Times, President Bush was
genuinely surprised to learn from moderate Islamic leaders that they had
become deeply distrustful of American intentions…. Why is aiding a
brutal dictator O.K., while trying to understand why others don't trust us
— and doing something to create that trust — isn’t?
….Moderate Muslims would have more faith in America’s good intentions
if there were at least the appearance of a distinction between the U.S. and
the Sharon government — but the administration seeks votes from those
who think that supporting Israel means supporting whatever Mr. Sharon
does…. Muslims are completely wrong to think that the Despite all official American explanations of good
intentions of military missions in the Muslim world, Muslim perception of the
Like Muslims, all Islamists can not be characterized as
fanatics, terrorists, and Wahabbis. Most American
official circles and many Western authorities on Islam and terrorists took
too long to appreciate this truth. It is only recently that some American
intellectuals have started to name real enemy in the Muslim world as radical
and fanatic Islamists. Just after military occupation of Thus “The Bush administration assured American strategy of regime change in Being the sole superpower Dissecting the intentions of Western and Bathist or Taliban leaders in resorting military options
to resolve conflicts with adversaries cannot reveal the major cause of
military conflicts between the US and Israel on the one side and Arabs and
Muslims on the other. Military strategy of every big military power knows a
common cause of winning war. Once winning a war becoming easy, then it is
very difficult to refrain the stronger party to stop the military adventures
against its weaker enemies. Moral leadership in international affairs is more
important than military leadership going against the wide of international
public opinion. There is no dispute over the issue that the Military success of Post-September 11 era has witnessed an intellectual
sensitivity toward Arab and Muslim predicaments related to human resource
development in the Muslim world. One after another UN reports have surfaced
indicating that what most Muslim countries need is the progress in education
and enlightened interpretation of the tenants of Islam. But how any foreign
military strategy in the Muslim world would help to resolve these huge
complicated problems compounded with poverty and corruption? Keeping the existing military conflicts and
extending military operation, how Western leaders and their military
strategists wish to be helpful to the Muslim world? In this background, no
amount of reports about backwardness of modern Arab societies and causes of
suicide attacks against perceived enemy targets would solve any problem, “Some analysts doubt such reports will have much
long-term value, particularly given the Arab world’s more pressing
concerns over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the troubled For a long time Western leaders put a blind eye on genuine
Muslim grievances against foreign occupation and domination of Muslim
countries, while Muslim leaders have ignored the urgent necessity of reforms
of their states and societies. At present
some high ranking military officers in the Israeli army acknowledge that
military occupation of Palestinian lands is the main cause of terrorism and
suicide bombing in Spreading war and military actions against Arabs, Israeli
government has also spread terrorism in the Arab world. Keeping the
Israeli-Palestine issue a limited conflict between the direct conflicting
parties over territorial disputes in the Real picture of collateral damage of wars in The first five centuries (viii-xiii) of Muslim
civilization was the most vibrant ideology and organized state power on the
Earth ai the time. The second five centuries
(xiii-xviii) was a time of stagnation in original thoughts of Muslims and
rise of military-based Muslim political powers. Now Muslims are going through
the same problems as many Christian people went through during the late
centuries of the Medieval ear (xiii-xvi). But to say that Muslims would need
another five centuries to catch the Christian world in achieving progress,
modernity, and scientific development is a very wrong perception of the
dynamics of human society and behavior. In most bad phenomena of modernity,
Muslim states have already achieved the same level of
“development” and delivered the latest best Western goods and
services to some sections of Muslim population. Pakistani nuclear bombs or ultra-Western life-style of
some Arab leaders and military dictators are just two recent manifestations
of Western modernity in the Muslim world. Muslims are now struggling with
their own image of “modern man and consumer”, while in common
Western perception Muslim are fighting for bringing back the seventh
century’s Arab culture and mannerism in all Muslim countries. If the
presence of American soldiers in the “Most of the troubles we have encountered in Changing status quo and empowering Muslim men and women is
now becoming an old-aged problem in the Muslim world. Empowering of one group
comes with a great lose to others. Moreover, for a long time changes in
status quo in the Muslim world are not moving in positive direction, rather
they have been sliding from bad to worse. From Bernard Lewis up to Thomas
Friedman, most American authors advocate reformation of Islamic political and
religious thoughts. Their writings reflect many American popular beliefs and
understandings of Islam as a political and ideological doctrine. But rarely
they provide any insight about the mainstream Muslim political and religious
forces struggling to bring about a radical change in the status quo of
economic deprivation and exploitation of Muslim masses. Muslims do not understand how military intervention or
occupation of any Muslim country by a foreign power would bring any
mush-needed reform that Muslim deserves and needs. Just replacing one vested
interest group by another or changing disloyal regime by loyal regime to the
Western powers, no major achievement in reformation of Muslim thought or
polity can be achieved. Muslim state regimes are now a reflection of very cruel
and unjust political and economic system upheld and sustained by a very tiny
group of crony capitalism. Western free-market economic with its open
competitive character in open for all. But number of highly disadvantageous
people under Western capitalism has been increasing up to an unacceptable and
intolerable level. Moreover, cronyism with deceptive methodologies to beat
free competition in American capitalism has been on the rise in recent years.[51]
Political reforms in right direction in view of bridging
gap between rich and poor or powerful and powerless might bring many positive
changes in reformation of religious thoughts and activities. In the West or
any industrially developed country a powerless, poor, and unemployed person
might not go through much trauma as his or her counterpart in the Muslim
world because formal legal equality provides some consolation in his or her
Western distressed and destitute life. Moreover, unlike Muslims, Westerners
are not heavily connected to the extended family, social, and tribal systems.
Westerners with misfortunes and failure remain mostly isolated and free to
give a complete fresh start in highly materialistic competitive life. Muslims
are hunted by past miseries and failure of their own and other family
members. At present, with little political freedom and scant economic
resources many Muslim societies have been putting their youth at desperate
situation. Furthermore, extreme traditional Muslim thoughts very often can
stand in the way of enlightened reforms at grass-root levels. The internal frame of religious and cultural references in
solving sociopolitical and economic problems is rather very difficult to
understand with a hostile value system in the mind of analyst, researcher and
observers. Moreover, if those references deal with delicate family relations
and dispute resolution system within traditional and extreme conservation
social circles without any exposure to modern industrial relations. Depending
upon some orthodox interpretations of isolated verses of the Quran some Arab authors can come to the following
conclusion: “Another
example of discrimination against Muslim women in Shariah’s family law is
the general right of husband to exercise guardianship and control over his
wife to the extent of chastising her in a variety of ways, including beating
her “lighty” if he deems her to be
“unruly” (nashidh).
He mere existence of this license for the husband to disciple his wife by
beating her totally incompatible with the human dignity of all women, whether
or not a particular women is likely to become victim of such
humiliation.” [52]
No degrees of
conservative or orthodox reading or technique of interpretation of the Quranic verses can tell that a Muslim husband has any
kind of “general right” or “license” to beat her
wife. Dispute over marital infidelity may cause domestic violence in any
marriage and anywhere and even in such a situation husband is advised not to
slap her wife on face. A husband may also be a victim of domestic violence
and infidelity and in such a situation also husband cannot slap her wife on
face. This is practically tantamount to ban any kind of beating of wife by
husband. But the Quran does not take any explicit
method of banning many evils in the society; it advised people to follow
modesty and decency in personal and collective life. In the case of
infidelity a Muslim husband can divorce his wife and can choose not to
disclose her infidelity to anyone. But a wife is supposed to disclose
husband’s infidelity to the society so that he cannot do the same
again. Any incidence of domestic violence, either slap or otherwise, allows a
Muslim women to declare divorce to her husband immediately and allows her to
retain guardianship over her children and property. But a violent husband
cannot claim any guardianship over children and bound to pay appropriate
sustenance to children. A Muslim wife has no financial responsibility for her
family or children. A Muslim husband is not allowed to take any financial
advantage from the property of wife. These are very basic Islamic norms agreed
up by most Muslim jurists and madhhabs (schools of law). But Muslim societies do not
have appropriate legislative and judicial systems to enforce those religious
laws for the benefits of women folk. Like many Western authors, some Muslim
authors also find it fashionable to
blame Islam or Quran for every evil of Muslim
society and cruelty inflicted upon Muslim women. But real culprits are
produced because of tribal relations and unholy alliances between religious
orthodoxy and economic vested interest groups. Recently some Muslim women
authors also think it is wrong to blame Islam and Quran
for unfair treatment of Muslim women and children in Muslim societies. “[I]t is far
less credible that the United Nations should have become so trapped in its
secular discourse that it could continue until recently to refuse to deal
with the fact that for millions of human beings whose lives are rooted in
belief rather that unbelief, human rights become meaningful only when they
are placed within the framework of their belief-system.” [53] Using religious
framework and values for the protection of human rights, especially
women’s right, might be very problematic as well. But not to use
religious and cultural references for upholding human rights might backfire
to the causes of women’s and children rights in the Muslim world. The
issues of protection of non-Muslim minorities in the Muslim world also can be
better served in the name of Islam, which make majority Muslim population
duty-bound to protect life, liberty, and dignity of people of other faiths.
Keeping a balance between individual freedom and state security is not always
easy. In the past it was thought that this only “The pretext of necessity is no doubt getting
increasingly weaker in an age of self-determination and political and
economic independence and confidence. Muslims can no longer maintain their
sense of self-respect and pride while neglecting their religious But before the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights could influence life of ordinary people of Third
World countries in any significant way, many Western leaders and politicians
wish to make the UN an irrelevant or ineffective umbrella as a global
institution for all nations and nationalities. a) Conflicting Perception of Right and
Wrong: Paradigm Problems b) Who is the Enemy
of Democracy and Islam? c)
d)
Conflicts
run through the values of Marriage, Family, and Terrorism a)
b)
How to
Understand: You are with Us or with Terrorists? |
