29 Nov. - 5 Dec. 2001
Issue No.562
|
Al-Ahram Weekly Online 29 Nov. - 5 Dec. 2001 Issue No.562 |
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 | Current issue | Previous issue | Site map | ||
A grain of salt in the wound
Gamil Mattar* offers some advice of his own
The secretary-general of the Arab League deserves nothing but praise for his idea of a meeting to deliberate the dangerous deterioration in relations between the West and the Muslim world. A single meeting or list of recommendations will be only the first of many steps toward this goal, yet the initiative underlines the need for honesty -- a need so desperate, I believe it justifies using politically inappropriate expressions if they can achieve our aim by the shortest route and at the least cost.
Honesty requires us to admit, first of all, that civilisations are indeed clashing. It is pointless to deny the conflict, or to call it by another name. Only by admitting its existence from the outset can we begin to reduce its severity.
It is easy to prove that a clash of civilisations, cultures or political systems -- call it what you will -- is taking place. The most benign effect of unproductive attempts to deny it will be to cover up its current manifestation; it will then fester, erupting with renewed virulence weeks or months hence. I will present only three facts here in support of my point, but it is possible to adduce many more.
Two weeks ago, Samuel Huntington met with a group of prominent intellectuals in the UAE. He spoke at length; they responded with sharp criticism and intelligent counterarguments. His self-confidence was not so much as scratched. He remained utterly sure of his theory, refusing to contemplate the possibility that a single word might be out of place. The clash of civilisations exists, he said; and what is currently taking place between the West and the Muslims is a manifestation of that conflict, one that is likely to grow worse. Only those sceptical about the quiet, subtle diplomacy for which many Arab governments are noted adamantly continue to dispute the idea of a clash of civilisations -- although the founder and primary exponent of the theory, not to mention the most qualified consultant on how to apply it, adheres tenaciously to his ideas.
Some could accuse Huntington of malice. Others might remember that he is only an academic, preoccupied with the theoretical aspects of political science and international relations -- for we all know how vast the gap is between practitioners and theoreticians of those subtle arts. We also know, however, that political theorists in the West laid the foundations for profound changes in international relations, and that cross- fertilisation between theorists and practitioners is common in US policy-making. Huntington could serve as a case study for the academic whose ideas either draw upon or inspire various elements of US foreign policy.
Far from the ivory towers of academia, the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington constitute exhibit B in our defence of the clash of civilisations. Religious leaders and opinion-makers in the Islamic world, including the supreme commander Osama Bin Laden and his Taliban protectors, seem to have dispatched several vitriolic statements. Each of these, alone, was sufficient to ignite a clash between religions, whether or not Huntington and his theory had existed. I scarcely need to mention, here, that the popular mood in many Eastern nations -- Islamic and non-Islamic -- was already less than satisfied with certain US and Western policies, as demonstrated (most recently) by the Conference against Racism in Durban and the anger on Arab streets and university campuses.
On the other side of the Mediterranean, the Italian prime minister committed his enormous faux pas. Perhaps it was unintentional; somehow, I doubt it. Margaret Thatcher, too, made statements betraying, let us say, a certain antagonism toward Muslims and foreigners in general. George Bush, however, preceded them with an unfortunate slip of the tongue that just happened to epitomise the cultural and religious clash.
These blunders, of course, were captured by the cameras. The Western media, mobilised within minutes of the suicide crashes, transformed public opinion into an astounding aggregate of hatred against a group of human beings that shared specific attributes: dark complexions, Middle Eastern features, heavily accented English, veiled or bearded, and mostly Muslim. This approximates nothing in Western history more closely than the political and media frenzy unleashed under Hitler against Jews, Arabs, Africans, gypsies, cripples and homosexuals.
The third item of evidence is the important speech on terrorism and relations between Islam and the West the British prime minister made two weeks ago, in which he took it upon himself to offer Muslims a piece of advice. This could have been interpreted in two ways. With strong reservations given the circumstances, I understood it to be advice from one ally or friend to another, who could then consider and act on it, if it served the purpose for which it was intended.
At present, however, Blair's advice could serve as further proof that the clash between the West and Islam is a minefield of ill- considered actions. The prime minister urged the leaders of Islamic nations to work so that "normal" or "mainstream" Islam may prevail among Muslims around the world. If Islam is united, as Muslims say, why are they divided, and why do fringes and marginal groups exist that are given to violence in words and, more frequently, in action?
This advice has many dangerous implications, even assuming that Mr Blair meant no harm and harboured no sentiments of a colonialist persuasion -- assuming, as I do, that he simply hoped to calm a dangerous situation. His advice suggests that Western leaders know that in today's war -- however it is described and whatever the issues under dispute -- one side is Muslim and the other Western. It matters little that the latter has sought to dilute its identity within a collection of diverse affiliations. The advice came from a leader of the Western coalition to leaders of "the Muslim people." Had this plea come at any other time, Muslim leaders might have acted on it immediately; under current circumstances, its message was confrontational. At best, it underscored the current confrontation.
The advice also implies that the leadership of the Western coalition not only sees the world order as polarised, but also assumes this polarisation continues in time and space. The enemy, as our Western advisers portray it, is "marginal" or unofficial Islam. They know that such forms of Islam have existed throughout the ages; but they know, too, that in the current crisis, Muslims have never objected to any particular trend in Christianity, or in Judaism for that matter. Certainly, no Muslim political or religious leader has asked the West to eliminate all but the mainstream variants of Christianity or Judaism. Yet Mr Blair's very polite message signifies that the origin of the current confrontation between human societies is a specific form of Islam that displeases the West, and that the West would like us to suppress that form, or at least bring it into the mainstream. The West, or at least our self-styled mentors, surely realise that most Muslims also disapprove of some marginal trends in Islam, and that many leaders would indeed like to counteract them. But can we cooperate productively toward this end in a climate of such enmity?
Let us suppose that mainstream Muslim leaders fail to suppress the "abnormal" Islam that so displeases the Western regimes. Will the coalition then intervene to impose its will wherever and whenever undesirable forms of Islam surface? Clearly, the pursuit of such a course, especially if Muslim leaders are induced to sanction it, would ignite strife in all Islamic societies, even those known for their high levels of tolerance. Perhaps, too, some politicians in the West will be happy to use the "fringe-Islam" card to add new names to theirs lists of rogue states. In several Islamic nations, after all, there are governments and leaders indebted to what the British prime minister calls non- mainstream Islam.
Furthermore, Blair's advice seems to imply that the war against terrorism should extend to include a programme of religious reform imposed from without on the Muslim peoples. Are Muslim leaders to accept the Western coalition's definition of "normal" Islam and hand over a list of the groups that do not conform? Will the coalition then demand the elimination of those sects and impose military, economic and political sanctions against those members who fail to perform their "civilised" duty?
It seems likely that there are those -- in the coalition, and in the West in general -- who think it possible to impose religious reform from abroad. They will argue that a similar coalition within the West was able to reform fundamental precepts of the Catholic Church -- for instance those regarding the Christian belief that the Jews were responsible for Christ's crucifixion. On the other hand, some will contend that it would be too difficult to alter many Islamic precepts, and far easier simply to suppress the most radical or least palatable trends.
In any case, I doubt that political and religious leaders in the Arab and Islamic world will agree to submit our religious affairs to an external coalition of any sort. The modern history of religious reform in the Islamic world extends over the past two centuries, and our leaders are no less capable today, whether individually or collectively, of embarking on reform from within, rather than waiting for permission from abroad. These leaders are aware of the cultural clashes looming so close overhead; and they know we will not last long if we do not effect the changes necessary to the imposition of dialogue.
Those participating in the Arab League meeting thought they would have to come up with recommendations for improving the image of the Arab and Muslim peoples. The crux of the issue is not one of image, however; rather, it is a clash of cultures that must be faced with honesty and resolve. The task at hand involves considerable introspection. Now is the time for Muslims and Arabs to pause and contemplate the wars of religion raging in all Muslim societies, causing alienation and heresy among young people, and bringing chaos ever closer. Now, too, is the time to resist those who keep trying to create conflict between religions. Only when we take such measures can the dialogue of civilisations begin.
* The writer is director of the Arab Centre for Futuristic Research.
© Copyright Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
| ARCHIVES Letter from the Editor Editorial Board Subscription Advertise! |
WEEKLY ONLINE: www.ahram.org.eg/weekly Updated every Saturday at 11.00 GMT, 2pm local time weeklyweb@ahram.org.eg |
 Al-Ahram Organisation |
Recommend this page