Islamism will not be a feature of post-Saddam Iraq
Zachary Latif 01:15
There is a primary reason in that Iraq does not have a history of strong Islamist movement and like other Middle Eastern populaces the Iraqis have strong tribal & clan connexions that prevent the formation of an Islamic state. There must be an underlying national culture to allow for the propagation of a specific Islamic ideology and indeed those who have been of the Islamists persuasion either belong to the minority culture (MMA in NWFP & Baluchistan because of the Pathans) or the urban proletariat (Algeria’s Arab failed to persuade the Berbers to Islamism). Ethnically diverse nations cannot just look to Islam as a bond for there needs to be a strong national culture to provide an uniform platform (Iran’s culture is heavily Persic-centric and has strong assimilatory tendencies, which is why the Kurds of Iran tend to be the most integrated). Iraq is bifurcated along ethnic lines and Islam cannot be the sole unifying influence (perhaps in a few decades if the Baghdadi Sunni culture permeates the entire nation then there is the possibility for an unified Islamic movement but that would also have to assume an uniformity of Arabic dialects). The secession of Baghdad from Pakistan shows that Islamic ideology alone cannot hold a nation together for there must be a linguistic, cultural or historical rationale. Allah has a thousand names and that axiom holds true in the Islamic Crescent.
Iraqis at any rate are historically a very secular population and seem alien to the orthodox “desert” Islam that is said to be practised from Morocco to Pakistan (whereas the lands from Bangladesh to Indonesia practise the variant known as “Monsoon Islam” derived significantly from Hindu culture). As the war taught us Iraq is pretty much a few scattered cities in Al-Jazirah (the island between the Tigris and the Euphrates) and the tribes in the desert as far as the eye can see. In the years of infrastructure and redevelopment the possibility of the population turning to extremist Islam seems rather far-fetched for relatively active and burgeoning economies tend to have politically apathetic populations.
Iraqi Shi'ism does not allow for a strong religious presence in the government, the Ayatollahs may be running the show in Basra but they are theologically prohibited from wielding power in the style of Khomeini. It isn't in the culture of south Iraq (or of any other Islamic nation) to embrace a theocratic form of government as in Iran.
Iraqi Kurds are notoriously secular (though their Turkish counterparts vehemently practise Islam to flaunt Islamic values to secular Turkey) and at any rate I believe they practise a variant of Sunni Islam that is quite heterodox.
The Sunni Arabs of Mesopt (middle and Western Iraq, Baghdad etc) were the bulwarks of Arab nationalism and are least prone to adopting Islam.
Islamism in the Crescent has always been misunderstood. Political Islam is an oxymoron since virtually all political platforms and movements in the Islamic world rely to a certain extent on Islamic values and thoughts. Secularism as understood in the West is a foreign concept since in virtually no Islamic nation (even Turkey or Tunisia) is there a truly secular ideology (in the end Ba'athism was tainted by Pan-Islamic appeal).
Liberalism in Iraq will have to be an organic outgrowth of that nation's culture; it will be the final test whether Islamic cultures can allow for liberal democracies in the Western mould. I would hazard that the institutions, which will arise in Iraq will be a direct consequence of that nation's heritage (much as in Japan where the democratic structure has been adapted to the indigenous Japanese cultures and Keiretsu survives despite the destruction of the 4 Zaibatsus). Saddam and Ba'athism was perversion of traditional Iraqi culture and impeded the evolution of a nation state. What will be the result of the invasion is the reversion to the indigenous trends and geopolitical faultlines in Iraq.
latif.blogspot.com
Comment(1)
Pakistan Convicts 4 in U.S. Consulate Bomb
KARACHI, Pakistan - An anti-terrorism court on Monday convicted four members of an outlawed Islamic militant group of orchestrating a truck bombing outside the U.S. Consulate in Karachi last year that killed 12 Pakistanis.
Two defendants were sentenced to death by hanging and two were sentenced to life in prison. All four remained defiant after the verdict, and one called his sentence "a blessing."
The June 14 bombing, which also wounded 43 people, was one of several aimed at foreigners and Pakistan's small Christian minority. It was believed to be retaliation for the government's alliance with the United States in the war against the al-Qaida terrorist network and Afghanistan (news - web sites)'s hardline Taliban regime.
The court sentenced Mohammed Imran and Mohammed Hanif to death by hanging. Mohammed Sharib and Mufti Zubair were sentenced to life in prison, while a fifth defendant, Mohammed Ashraf, was acquitted. The four convicted men also were fined about $9,000 each.
Pakistan has admirably acquitted itself by serving justice to the terrorists. It's actions have more than redeemed itself in the world's eyes rendering Fernandes's statements (Indian Defence Minister) laughable. When India issues feeble threats to Pakistan it manages to make itself even more tangential to the course of global politics. As an Indian friend recently remarked, "nobody listens to India" and in this case it's a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Of course what's amusing is the flurry of pre-emption strikes that India threatens Pakistan and vice versa:
ISLAMABAD: Pakistan on Monday once again rejected the principle of pre-emption and called for a dialogue with New Delhi, but warned that India qualified more than any other state as a target of pre-emptive strikes.
Commenting on the continued threats emitting from New Delhi, Foreign Office spokesman Aziz Ahmed Khan told weekly press briefing that Pakistan had acted with great restraint in the face of provocation. These are irresponsible statements and if indeed there is a case of pre-emptive strike, it is India that qualifies more than any other country.
The spokesman said New Delhi has violated the UN resolutions, amassed weapons of mass destruction and has been involved in massive human rights abuses, which have seen 80,000 Kashmiris killed in 10-12 years as have been acknowledged even by the Indian human rights organizations.
Zachary Latif 01:03 |
