Second part of Pervez Hoodbhoy's Muslims and the West
Time to give up false notions: Muslims and the West
By Pervez Hoodbhoy
[The following is the remaining part of the article "Muslims and the West".
First part of the article appeared in Monday's issue.]
DESPITE widespread resistance from the orthodox, the logic of modernity
found 19th century Muslim adherents. Modernizers such as Mohammed
Abduh and Rashid Rida of Egypt, Sayyed Ahmad Khan of India, and
Jamaluddin Afghani (who belonged everywhere), wished to adapt Islam to
the times, interpret the Quran in ways consistent with modern science, and
discard the Hadith (ways of the Prophet) in favour of the Qur'an. Others
seized on the modern idea of the nation-state.
It is crucial to note that not a single Muslim nationalist leader of the 20th
century was a fundamentalist. Turkey's Kemal Ataturk, Algeria's Ahmed Ben
Bella, Indonesia's Sukarno, Pakistan's Muhammad Ali Jinnah, Egypt's Gamal
Abdel Nasser, and Iran's Mohammed Mosaddeq all sought to organize their
societies on the basis of secular values.
However, Muslim and Arab nationalism, part of a larger anti-colonial
nationalist current across the Third World, included the desire to control and
use national resources for domestic benefit. The conflict with Western greed
was inevitable. The imperial interests of Britain, and later the United States,
feared independent nationalism. Anyone willing to collaborate was preferred,
even the ultra-conservative Islamic regime of Saudi Arabia. In time, as the
cold war pressed in, nationalism became intolerable. In 1953, Mosaddeq of
Iran was overthrown in a CIA coup, replaced by Reza Shah Pahlavi. Britain
targeted Nasser. Indonesia's Sukarno was replaced by Suharto after a bloody
coup that left a million dead.
Pressed from outside, corrupt and incompetent from within, secular
governments proved unable to defend national interests or deliver social
justice. They began to frustrate democracy. These failures left a vacuum
which Islamic religious movements grew to fill. After the fall of the Shah,
Iran underwent a bloody revolution under Ayatollah Khomeini. General
Mohammad Zia-ul-Haq ruled Pakistan for eleven hideous years and strove to
Islamize both state and society. In Sudan an Islamic state arose under Jaafar
al-Nimeiry; amputation of hands and limbs became common. Decades ago
the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) was the most powerful
Palestinian organization, and largely secular. After its defeat in 1982 in
Beirut, it was largely eclipsed by Hamas, a fundamentalist Muslim movement.
The lack of scruple and the pursuit of power by the United States combined
fatally with this tide in the Muslim world in 1979, when the Soviet Union
invaded Afghanistan. With Pakistan's Zia-ul-Haq as America's foremost ally,
the CIA advertised for, and openly recruited, Islamic holy warriors from
Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Algeria. Radical Islam went into overdrive as
its superpower ally and mentor funnelled support to the mujahideen, and
Ronald Reagan feted them on the lawn of White House, lavishing praise on
"brave freedom fighters challenging the Evil Empire".
After the Soviet Union collapsed the United States walked away from an
Afghanistan in shambles, its own mission accomplished. The Taliban
emerged; Osama bin Laden and his Al-Qaeda made Afghanistan their base.
Other groups of holy warriors learned from the Afghan example and took up
arms in their own countries.
At least until September 11, US policy makers were unrepentant. A few years
ago, Carter's U.S. national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski was asked by
the Paris weekly Nouvel Observateur whether in retrospect, given that
"Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today", US policy might
have been a mistake. Brzezinski retorted: "What is most important to the
history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some
stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the
cold war?"
But Brzezinski's "stirred up Moslems" wanted to change the world; and in this
they were destined to succeed. With this, we conclude our history primer for
the 700 years uptil September 11, 2001.
What should thoughtful people infer from this whole narrative? I think the
inferences are several - and different for different protagonists.
For Muslims, it is time to stop wallowing in self-pity: Muslims are not helpless
victims of conspiracies hatched by an all-powerful, malicious West. The fact is
that the decline of Islamic greatness took place long before the age of
mercantile imperialism. The causes were essentially internal. Therefore
Muslims must introspect, and ask what went wrong.
Muslims must recognize that their societies are far larger, more diverse and
complex than the small homogeneous tribal society in Arabia 1400 hundred
years ago. It is therefore time to renounce the idea that Islam can survive
and prosper only in an Islamic state run according to Islamic "sharia" law.
Muslims need a secular and democratic state that respects religious freedom,
human dignity, and is founded on the principle that power belongs to the
people. This means confronting and rejecting the claim by orthodox Islamic
scholars that in an Islamic state sovereignty does not belong to the people
but, instead, to the viceregents of Allah (Khilafat-al-Arz) or Islamic jurists
(Vilayat-e-Faqih).
Muslims must not look towards the likes of Osama bin Laden; such people
have no real answer and can offer no real positive alternative. To glorify
their terrorism is a hideous mistake - the unremitting slaughter of Shias,
Christians, and Ahmadis in their places of worship in Pakistan, and of other
minorities in other Muslim countries, is proof that all terrorism is not about
the revolt of the dispossessed.
The United States too must confront bitter truths. It is a fact that the
messages of George W. Bush and Tony Blair fall flat while those of Osama bin
Laden, whether he lives or dies, resonate strongly across the Muslim world.
Osama's religious extremism turns off many Muslims, but they find his
political message easy to relate to - stop the dispossession of the
Palestinians, stop propping up corrupt and despotic regimes across the world
just because they serve US interests.
Americans will also have to accept that the United States is past the peak of
its imperial power; the '50s and '60s are gone for good. Its triumphalism and
disdain for international law is creating enemies everywhere, not just among
Muslims. Therefore they must become less arrogant, and more like other
peoples of this world. While the US will remain a superpower for some time
to come, it is inevitably going to become less and less "super".
There are compelling economic and military reasons for this. For example,
China's economy is growing at 7 per cent per year while the US economy is
in recession. India, too, is coming up very rapidly. In military terms,
superiority in the air or in space is no longer enough to ensure security. In
how many countries can US citizens safely walk the streets today?
Our collective survival lies in recognizing that religion is not the solution;
neither is nationalism. Both are divisive, embedding within us false notions of
superiority and arrogant pride that are difficult to erase. We have but one
choice: the path of secular humanism, based upon the principles of logic and
reason. This alone offers the hope of providing everybody on this globe with
the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Pervez Amirali Hoodbhoy teaches at Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad
dawn.com |
