|
Muslims for Understanding and Peaceful Coexistence
By Siraj Islam Mufti
09/10/2001
Now that war has begun following the tragedies of September 11, it is time to reflect and ponder on the future course of events. Is the Muslim world on a collision course with the West? That is, are the ideological and civilizational differences between them so enormous that they are inevitably headed for clashes and wars? Or, is there a possibility for coexistence in peace with understanding? The mainstream Islamic movements have opted for the latter.
The most prominent Islamic scholars, and millions of other God-fearing Muslims around the world, categorically condemned as un-Islamic the terrorist acts committed against the United States. They considered the acts horrendous crimes committed by individuals with a warped understanding of Islam, which stands for sanctity of life. In fact, Islamic movements, right from their start, assured that the focus of their attention was the Muslim community, and that they were not opposed to legitimate Western interests in Muslim lands.
Consider the following two recent events. Early last year, the leader of the world's largest Islamic party, Qazi Hussain Ahmad of the
Jamaat'i-Islami from Pakistan, met with prominent political leaders and think tank intellectuals in the U.S., Canada, Japan, England and other European countries. He engaged them in open and frank discussions to remove any doubts and apprehensions about Islamic movements in general, and the party he is elected to lead, in particular. He further explained that their faith-based stand on issues was not against any country but was meant for the good of all humankind. Earlier, Mohammad Khatami, after his election as President of Iran, earnestly worked on an agenda to initiate a dialog among world civilizations. He brought it up in 1998 at a U.N. General Assembly meeting and was enthusiastically supported by Secretary General Kofi Annan. As a result, towards the end of 2000, the Assembly, without vote, adopted a resolution to declare the year 2001 as the Year of Dialog among Civilizations. These initiatives were followed early this year by Khatami's inauguration in Tehran of a comprehensive international conference on the topic of Islamic choice.
Indeed, Islam, literally meaning peace, aims at achieving peace with God, one's own self and one's surroundings. It is very much for a dialog with all of humankind. To reach out to others, the Islamic outreach (dawah) is an obligation of every Muslim. Guaranteeing complete freedom of expression and choice without any pressure whatever to accept a particular point of view preconditions this effort. This is because of the cardinal Qur'anic principle: "There is no compulsion in one's belief
(deen)"(2:256).
This dialog is to exchange ideas with due respect for the differences as explained superbly in the following Qur'anic text. "And invite all to the way of your Lord with wisdom and goodly advice and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious; for thy Lord knows best who have strayed from His path and who receive guidance."(16:125). Despite the greatness of his cause and the tremendous efforts of Mohammad (peace be on him) and his suffering for it, the Qur'an records in several clear assertions that his job was only to deliver the message, and this was admirably demonstrated by his personal example. Muslims throughout their history have literally followed this attitude in their dealings with others. It was this spirit of cordiality and free exchange that led to the genesis of Europe's Renaissance, a fact acknowledged by all serious scholars of history.
However, the image of Islam and Muslims was deliberately muddied in the West first by the Crusaders, to avenge Christian defeats, and then by Western orientalists, to further colonialist designs. The Zionist and pro-Israel lobby now fuel this distortion with their vested interests in the current conflict of the Middle East. Thus, much of the time spent by Muslim organizations in the West is consumed in dispelling an unending barrage of criticisms and stereotyping picked up blindly by individuals and the dominant Western media. Until they are able to correct these distorted presentations of Islam in the public's mind, and/or are in a position to influence political power structures, there may not be a favorable change in policies currently being pursued towards Muslims.
Paradoxically, a troubling aspect of its relations with the rest of the world started when the U.S. assumed the role of the sole superpower. In his now classic, and oft-criticized, paper on the clash of civilizations, Samuel Huntington tells: "The West is now at an extraordinary peak of power in relation to other civilizations. Apart from Japan, the West has no economic challenge. It dominates international political and security institutions, and with Japan, economic institutions." He then suggests that: "In the post-Cold War, the primary objective of arms control is to prevent the development by non-Western societies of military capabilities that would threaten Western interests. The West attempts to do this through international agreements, economic pressure and controls on the transfer of arms and weapons technologies."
Although these statements are by no means unanimous, his suggestions have been followed by successive U.S. administrations. The ex-President Bush, the elder, in a policy statement stated that the U.S. would not let any other power develop the capability to challenge its sole superpower status and threaten its unparalleled hegemony. This policy for a New World Order under U.S. domination continues today.
Not surprisingly, in this emerging scenario, Huntington depicts Islam as posing a threat to the West. This, despite the fact that most Muslim governments currently in power were put in place by ex-colonialists and are maintained in their status quo by Western powers. In no way do they pose a threat or challenge to Western hegemony, either militarily, economically and/or technologically. If there is a threat, it is for these regimes to reform, end suppression of political dissent and stop violations of human rights.
Muslims are increasingly alienated from their own governments, which have been described as corrupt and highly ineffective in improving the lot of their populations. The real problem for the U.S. is that it is close to, and protective of, these undemocratic governments. These governments must be accountable to their citizens through the rule of law, providing guarantees for their freedoms and abiding by the results of free and fair elections. Obviously, the current situation most Muslim countries find themselves in is not desirable, would not last for long and, therefore, bound to change, sooner or later. And it certainly would be to the advantage of the U.S. if it becomes an agent for this change.
The desired change for Muslims would also come when there is a change in the mind-set of the Western powers towards them: from a realization that all forms of their exploitations must end, giving way to understanding, and in the process, gaining mutual respect. All the more so because Muslims possess vast resources and have strategically important geographic locations, as evidenced by intense study concerning regions Muslims inhabit at most universities in the West. Hopefully, this changed perception would be brought home as more and more Western intellectuals and organizations present a correct picture of Islam and Muslims through studies and closer interactions with their counterparts in the Islamic world. Such a relationship would be mutually beneficial; transferring Western know-how and technologies to Muslim lands, and using solutions that Islam provides for numerous moral and societal problems eithin the West.
Currently, Western, and especially U.S., hegemony is being challenged not only by certain intellectuals, but also by a growing number of grassroots organizations in the West itself. These protesters are becoming more and more popular, and more organized in conveying demands at every meeting of the G-8, for instance. The protestors are disturbed by the continued looting of the poverty-stricken South (in which Muslim countries are located) by the affluent North through policies pursued by the World Bank, IMF and WTO. This is causing an alarming disparity in the distribution of wealth, along with an increasing debt burden taking its toll on developing countries by bringing them to the brink of bankruptcy and failure. Despite the unceasing media disinformation and propaganda, there is also an increased understanding of the suffering of Iraqis and Palestinians in growing numbers among people in the West.
With war, many fear that reprisals and vengeance-seeking with the blood of innocents ultimately spilled will not remedy the situation, but only exacerbate it. They are asking now that "the network theme music pounds out the drumbeat of war" and "talk shows speak of 'dusting off the nukes' and wiping out entire countries" that "if the attacks on the United States lie just as much in rage and a sense of injustice as they do in religious fervor, will bombing a country senseless make us safer? Or will it help perpetuate more rage, more hatred, more despair? And, quite possibly, more terror in the United States." Imagine the consequences if, as reported in the American news media, the U.S. targeted Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Yemen and Sudan, in addition to Afghanistan.
It is important for the U.S. to revisit its foreign policy towards countries in which Muslims reside through a better understanding of them, to befriend, rather than antagonize them. There is no excuse for terrorism, but in the final analysis these are acts of desperation. It is only by addressing the causes that lead people to such desperate acts that terrorism can be dealt with. There is no other solution for it: only the political process that leads to it on the basis of justice. There must be an unequivocal and universal pursuit of justice, not revenge. Eliminating Osama bin Laden or humiliating the Taliban will not solve it.
There is a popular antagonism against the U.S. for its hegemonistic policies and double standards not only among Muslims, but also among its European allies. It was this backlash that recently resulted in the expulsion of the U.S. from the U.N. Human Rights Commission and the U.N. Anti-Narcotics Commission. Such distrust and disillusionment will continue unless the U.S. modifies its course. Hopefully, as Muslim political activism continues, along with disaffection from U.S. allies and internal pressures, such as grassroots protests, in combination with sober intellectual analyses, an atmosphere conducive to peace and coexistence in the interest of humankind may emerge.
|
