Asia Times Online


	April 3, 2002	atimes.com

Front

REFLECTIONS ON ISLAM
Part 1: Time to take stock
By Sultan Shahin

LONDON - On the face of it, Islam would have nothing to do with the terrorist attacks on the Twin Towers in New York and the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia, on September 11 of last year.

The terrorists came from just two countries, both staunch allies of the United States. They were supported by a network of terrorists created by the United States itself, though of course for a different purpose. They were operating from a country run by people who had reportedly been trained, armed and financed by or at the behest of the US to begin with and whose government was recognized only by a few of the staunchest US allies.

As a New York Times columnist said recently, the perpetrators of this crime suffered from "a poverty of dignity, not a poverty of money", very much in the manner of that quintessential American Timothy McVeigh. It would thus appear to have been an in-house affair, not very different from the greatest terrorist tragedy to have struck the US before September 11, McVeigh's dynamiting of a building in Oklahoma, killing hundreds of people in the process.

On September 11, the world was horror-struck. All humanity spoke as one, denouncing the terrorists, calling them evil. Each one of the Muslim governments around the world pledged support to the US in its legitimate quest for justice for the innocent victims of the tragedy that soon became known simply as September 11. As it was learned that the perpetrators of the horrendous crime considered themselves Muslim, many Muslims around the world felt and expressed their shame at having to share their faith with such barbarians. Scholars of Islam, both Muslim and non-Muslim, came out with statements that Islam does not condone, much less promote, such criminal behavior under any pretext.

Islamic teaching about the killing of one innocent person being equivalent to the killing of entire humanity, and protecting one person being equivalent to protecting entire humanity, became widely known as it was repeated in the media again and again.

Some of the comments, indeed, revealed the thinking of the entire Muslim ummah (community). On the hijacking of Islam by terrorists, for instance, a commentator, Ruqaiyyah Waris Maqsood, said, "If the terrorists that struck the USA last week were indeed Muslims, they have not only committed murder, which carries the death penalty, but have also committed a physical attack upon Islam by the damage they have done to its image." This was the general sentiment of Muslims all over the world.

But some Muslims, even those who were not connected with any fundamentalist organizations, in the meantime, started saying that America had it coming, that with its imperialist and neo-colonialist policies it was inevitable that one day it would come under attack from the disgruntled peoples around the world, whatever their creed or color. In short, they began rationalizing September 11. They also began casting doubts on the very possibility of Muslims being involved.

Admittedly, their numbers were very small, almost negligible, if you take into consideration that the Muslim community is more than 1.2 billion strong, with nearly 50 countries having dominant Muslim populations. But in this world of instant and wide communication, word spreads very fast. It also gets, almost inevitably, magnified, through 24-hour repetition in the electronic media and continuous presence on the Internet.

This was a call for disaster, a call for confrontation with America, indeed with the West. And in very poor taste, too, coming as it did in the wake of such a terrible human tragedy. It had the potential of raising the specter of a clash between the Islamic and Western civilizations, of bringing to realization an idea that had already been around since Bernard Lewis and then Samuel Huntington propounded and propagated the theory of an almost inevitable civilizational clash between Islam and the West, or Islam and the rest.

Some right-wing hotheads in the West, too, called for a new colonization of the Muslim world as the only solution of the problem of what they called Islamic terrorism, forgetting that the term Islamic terrorism itself was self-contradictory, as the very word Islam stands for peace and there cannot possibly be any room for terrorism in Islam.

There was near panic in the West. But, to their credit, US President George W Bush and other responsible Western leaders denied again and again the possibility of a civilizational clash between Islam and the West. Former US president Bill Clinton made an impassioned plea for a united response to the evils of terrorism, as did responsible Muslim leaders around the world.

Pakistani President General Pervez Musharraf's unequivocal stance against terrorism, perhaps, helped matters most. So did the prompt withdrawal of recognition of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan by the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia.

It was in this atmosphere of world unity that the US fought the first phase of its war against terrorism. Even when US bombs started killing thousands of innocent Afghans, who were already leading a miserable life, through no fault of their own, the Muslim world, though perturbed, did not demur. There were protests in Pakistan, particularly among those who shared ethnic bonds with those innocent people who were being killed in what the US dismissed as collateral damage, but the government came down upon the protesters with a heavy hand and the fall of the Taliban was executed in an atmosphere of support from the entire Muslim world.

But as soon as the first phase of this war against terrorism was seemingly over, the mood in the West seems to have changed. First came the axis of evil speech made by President Bush, calling Iran and Iraq part of an axis of evil along, with North Korea. Then came a spate of reports in the Western media suggesting that the only countries that would be targeted in the second and later phases of what would be an unending war would be Muslim. This has now been followed by statements from influential public figures virtually calling for a crusade against Islam.

Take for instance the recent write-up by former British prime minister and still an influential Western statesman, Margaret Thatcher, in The Guardian. She has gone to the extent of calling upon Western powers to deal with militant Islam in the same manner as they dealt with Bolshevism. She writes, "Perhaps the best parallel is with early communism. Islamic extremism today, like Bolshevism in the past, is an armed doctrine. It is an aggressive ideology promoted by fanatical, well-armed devotees. And, like communism, it requires an all-embracing long-term strategy to defeat it."

We can judge ourselves, where we stand in regard to the Islamic teachings about what is expected of us as Muslims. Obviously, on slight reflection, most Muslims would find themselves wanting in taqwa (fear of Allah) as desired by God from them.

Now let us try and see where Muslim societies stand judged by the Islamic criteria. The touchstone here can only be the Islamic concept of the welfare state.

Saudi scholar and economist M Umar Chapra has studied the subject in detail in his book Economic System of Islam. His perspectives on the Islamic welfare state and its role in the economy are most valuable in our search for Islamic criteria to judge ourselves.

Islam has a set of goals and values encompassing all aspects of human life, including social, economic and political. Since all aspects of life are interdependent and the Islamic way of life is a consistent whole, its goals and values in one field determine the goals and values in the other fields as well. The Islamic way of life, being goal-oriented, is inconceivable without an organized community governed in accordance with the tenets of Islam. The Koran unequivocally condemns disorder and anarchy (2:205) and the Prophet (peace be upon him) stressed the need for organization and authority in Muslim society. This stress is also vividly reflected in several statements as well as the actual behavior of his companions and in the thinking of Muslim jurists.

Applauding America for the success it has achieved in its fight against what she calls Islamic terrorism, Thatcher calls upon the mightiest superpower to strike at other centers of Islamic terror that have taken root in Africa, Southeast Asia and elsewhere. Finally, she openly declares that the West should cripple what she calls Muslim rogue states such as Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya and Sudan, because they are enemies of Western values and interest.

This would require, she said, massive use of force, but the West should not hesitate to use it because "the events of September 11 are a terrible reminder that freedom demands eternal vigilance. And for too long we have not been vigilant. We have harbored those who hated us, tolerated those who threatened us and indulged those who weakened us. As a result, we remain, for example, all but defenseless against ballistic missiles that could be launched against our cities. A missile defense system will begin to change that. But change must go deeper still. The West as a whole needs to strengthen its resolve against rogue regimes and upgrade its defenses."

In response, even a level-headed Indian Muslim intellectual such as Rafiq Zakaria feels constrained to ask, "If this is not a call for a crusade against Islam, then what is? Muslims have, therefore, to decide how they are going to protect themselves against this possible onslaught against them." It will be worse than the Crusades that their ancestors had to encounter, Zakaria warns. That was an armed conflict, which the Muslims were fully prepared for. But are they today? Do all the Muslim countries together have the military capabilities, the technological expertise, and all the other elements necessary for such a combat, Zakaria asks, and then adds, the answer clearly is no.

Musharraf, while inaugurating the International Islamic Conference on Science and Technology recently, frankly told the delegates, "Muslims form one-fourth of humanity; but we are the poorest, the most backward, the most unhealthy and, indeed, the most deprived and the weakest of the human race."

What chance do Muslims then have in a confrontation with the mightiest world power? Obviously the prospect is bleak. Merely railing against the United States or the West, raving and ranting against their imperialist or colonialist and neo-colonialist policies, as some of us are prone to do, would not serve any purpose.

Should we then just sit back and relax, waiting for the doom. Can we afford to? Clearly no. What should we do then, if anything?

This clearly calls for introspection. I think, as Muslims, we should first cast a look at our own position at the present moment in Allah's scheme of things. The following verse from the Holy Koran might provide us guidance:
"We destroyed the generations before you when they did wrong; and their messengers [from Allah] came unto them with clear proofs [of His sovereignty] but they would not believe. Thus do we reward the guilty folk." (10:13).

In the same chapter, the next verse says, "Then we appointed you viceroys in the earth after them, that we might see how you behave." (10:14).

In the exegesis of the Holy Koran, according to a Pakistani scholar, Riaz A Siddiqui, annihilation does not necessarily mean that a particular race will be totally destroyed. What it means is that a nation that forgets the lessons of the Holy Book will be consigned to the dustbin of history with its culture and achievements made ineffective. It will be forced to lose its identity and will have to merge with other nations having forfeited its right to exist on its own.

Siddiqui says, "It is the law of Allah as the second verse quoted above has revealed that once a race or a nation falls below the minimum level of moral rectitude, God brings forward another nation to take its place. The Holy Koran in many verses ascribes the fall of the nations to their addictions to injustice and cruelty. Those who are addicted to cruelty and injustice find little that is worth in other people. They are not prepared to stand anything against their whim or disposition, however, wholesome or healthy it may be.

"As opposed to this, nations that do not practice cruelty or transgress the laws of nature and instructions conveyed through the Holy Book and the Prophets, do not trip and fall into the mire of inequity and moral debasement. They defend virtue and truth and follow the path of justice and moderation. Self-sacrifice, sympathy, compassion and giving of succor to the needy are an integral part of a nation's collective conduct and character."

Have we Muslims reached a point in our debasement where we deserve to be consigned to the dustbin of history, making it necessary for Allah to appoint a successor?

Next: Has Allah consigned Muslims to the dustbin of history?

((c)2002 Asia Times Online Co, Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact ads@atimes.com for information on our sales and syndication policies.)

back to the top

©2001 Asia Times Online Co., Ltd.

Building B - 5th Floor, 102/1 Phra Arthit Road, Chanasangkhram, Bangkok 10200, Thailand