Western Policy towards the Muslim World
Mohammed Sharif *
1. The Myths
Thanks to the stereotyping of Muslims by the Western media, the quiet disposition of the silent majority of the Muslim population, certain unacceptable behavior of a few from the Muslim societies, and the inactive nature of the leaders of the Muslim community, today Muslims are referred to as the terrorists. This oft repeated stereotype 'Muslims are terrorists' carries three myths with it: all Muslims are Arabs, all Arabs are Muslims, and Middle East means the Arab world. Therefore, all Arabs are terrorists, all Middle Eastern people are terrorists, and all Muslims, of course, are terrorists. It does not need explaining that Middle East includes non-Arab countries, and therefore, there are non-Arabs in the Middle East. That there are non-Muslims in the Arab world and in the Middle East is also well known-there are Christians, Jews, Bahais, Zoroastrians, and even pagans. Most importantly, only a small number of the world's Muslim population, 18 percent, live in the Arab world-Muslims live in almost every country of the world, and the largest percentage live in the South and South-East Asia.
Are all Arabs, all Middle Easterners, and all Muslims terrorists? The latest available information on terrorism compiled by the US Department of State is presented in Table 1. The table shows that in 1997 there were a total of 123 terrorist attacks against the US interests. Of these, only four, a meager 3.25 percent took place in the Middle East. If we include all the attacks that took place in Asia, we get 10 that is only 8.13 percent of the total; if those taking place in Africa are also added, the figure turns out to be 12, which is still a small 9.76 percent.
Table I
Terrorist Attacks against the US Interests
(1997)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Africa Eurasia North Middle Asia Europe Latin Total
America East America
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of 2 3 4 4 6 7 97 123
Attacks
Percentage 1.63 2.44 3.25 3.25 4.88 5.69 78.86 100
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: US Department of State Report, 1998.
Almost all the attacks-78.86 percent-took place in Latin America; but the religious identity of these perpetrators is not publicized. However, given the overwhelming domination of Christianity in Latin America, the perpetrators most probably are from Christian background-but they are not called Christian terrorists. A good number of terrorist incidents, such as abortion clinic bombings occur within the USA-these are not referred to as Christian terrorism. Terrorism takes place in Israel and Palestine, one even leading to the assassination of the Israeli Prime Minister, by members of the Jewish community. They are not called Jewish terrorism. This is so because, in any society, there are always some people who violate the standard norms of the society, but their behavior cannot and should not be attributed to the whole society. However, in the case of the Muslim society that actually is responsible for the smallest number of violations, this principle is completely ignored. Why is this exception and why are the Muslims called terrorists?
2. Who is Terrorized?
To understand who is the terrorist and who is terrorized, one needs to understand the meaning of the word terrorism. The American Heritage Dictionary1 defines terrorism as systematic use of terror, violence, and intimidation to achieve an end, terror as intense, overpowering fear, and terrify as to fill or overpower with terror and to coerce by intimidation or fear. Thus a person, a group of persons, a people, or a nation that creates overpowering fear in another person, group, people, or nation by using terror, violence, and intimidation, is a terrorist and the perpetrated are terrorized. One of the consequences of terrorism would be to displace people in a community from their homes and turn them into refugees.
Table 2
Refugees throughout the World
(As of December 31, 1997)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Number Percentage
of of
Refugees All Refugees
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
World 13,566,000 100
Muslim World 9,392,050 69
Middle East 5,708,000 42
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. Committee for Refugees; 1998, USCR.
The figures on refugees compiled by the US Committee for Refugees for 1997 are presented in Table 2. These figures show that out of the total of about 13.6 million refugees in the world, 9.4 million are in the Muslim world and 5.7 million in the Middle East. While the Muslims make up about 21 percent of the world's population, they account for 69 percent of the world's refugees. This ratio becomes even worse for the Middle East-with less than five percent of the world's population, it suffers the burden of 42 percent of the world's refugees. This evidence is in stark contradiction to the stereotyped perception, and clearly shows that the Muslims, and more grievously the Middle Eastern people, are the ones who are terrorized in their own countries. The size of the population turned into refugees is only one measure of the extent of sufferings of the terrorized people-there are obviously corresponding figures on the number of people jailed, tortured, killed, and maimed, and the number of homes burned and destroyed in the process of creating refugees. How in the world then do Muslims and the Middle Eastern people who are in fact extremely terrorized, get the title of terrorists?
3. Western Policy towards the Muslim World
Conventional analysis refers to the situation in the Middle East, especially with respect to the Iranian Revolution and the Israeli-Palestinian and Israeli-Lebanese conflicts, as the factor responsible for the generation of the incorrect perception about the Muslims. While there is no denying that these events have added to the perception, they are not the real cause that has created the situation and generated the perception. To me, there is something more fundamental that has led to both the creation of this situation and the formation of the perception. It is the nature of the Western policy towards the third world in general, and the Muslim world in particular, and the reaction to it from some of the aggrieved people in these countries that is responsible for these unhealthy consequences. There are two aspects of this policy, one applies generally to all the third world countries, and the other relates specifically to the Muslim countries.
The governments of Western democratic countries, contrary to their professed objective, do not really want and support democracy in third world countries. They support non-democratic, autocratic, and oppressive rulers, and perpetuate their rules. A look at the Western allies around the world can gather a long list of military dictators, autocratic feudal lords, and kings, but relatively very few elected leaders. The Western governments even quietly support the installation of or actively install dictatorial rulers in power by replacing democratically elected governments. Algeria and Turkey at present and Mohamad Mossadeq's government of Iran in the past do exemplify this contention. Mossadeq's government was toppled and the Pahlavi dynasty was established in power by the CIA-the reason provided for this action was that Mossadeq was a communist sympathizer. History shows evidence contrary to this claim-immediately after taking charge of the government, Mossadeq abrogated the oil interests his predecessor granted to the USSR, not exactly the action of a real sympathizer. A closer examination of the events surrounding this action by CIA directs our attention to the real reason that Mossadeq was a nationalist, not a Western henchman.
President Clinton's formal apology last year (1999) to the Guatemalan people for the past US support to their brutally repressive government and the sufferings it perpetrated on them is an honest and bold, though belated, recognition of this policy. Father Ross's fight against the School of Americas in Fort Bennings, Georgia, that trains foreign soldiers reportedly to suppress opposition to the US supported dictatorial governments is another evidence that supports this contention.
The reason for this policy is very simple-a dictatorial government can be manipulated and dictated, but a democratic government cannot be. A democratic government has its roots of power in the people of the country and is accountable to the people. Therefore, it cannot and usually does not do anything that is not in the interest of the country and its people, no matter, how important that something is to the 'so called' national security interest of foreign powers or the 'new world order.' A dictatorial government does not have any root in the people of the country, depends on foreign powers for military, economic, and diplomatic supports, and does not have to be accountable to the people. Hence, this type of governments can be used to get the jobs done by offering 'foreign aids.'
As these governments owe their allegiance to foreign powers, not to the people of their countries, they most often do not serve the interest of their people-they generally serve their self-interest and that of their foreign masters. This logically generates opposition to their corrupt policies; but they respond with repression and become more autocratic, naturally leading the people to agitate against them, and because the Western support keeps them in power, against the Western countries. These destroy the chances for the growth of democratic institutions and create conditions for continuous instability and even prolonged civil wars, causing untold sufferings to the people. This is the reason why a group of conservative economists led by Lord P. T. Bauer strongly advocates complete discontinuation of foreign aid to third world countries.
In addition to this general handicap, Muslim countries suffer a second and more serious hurdle in achieving and enjoying the benefits of democratic governments. The general perception of the Western scholars, policy makers, and leaders about the Islamic political system imposes this hurdle on the people of the Muslim countries. The Western democracy is secular and pluralistic. At least theoretically, it grants equal opportunities and equal rights to its minorities including the religious minorities-Jesse Jackson can at least run for the President of the USA. Whether in practice the minorities do enjoy equal opportunities and rights is a different question altogether-Jackson might never be nominated for and elected President and make policies that profoundly affect the condition of the African-American community.
To a Westerner, the Islamic political system, being Islamic, is meant for and by the Muslims. Therefore, the non-Muslims will be completely out of the system and its process of decision making-they will be solely at the mercy of the Muslims, living as non-entities, and having no role in making decisions that affect their lives, work, and faith. The worst-case scenario of Islamic political system some Western experts imagine is the one where all the non-Muslims actually will be forced to live as Muslims. Thus the Western scholars, policy makers, and leaders shudder at the thought of Islamic political system even being talked about, not to speak of the potential for establishing it. One can easily imagine why anybody talking about Islamic system is immediately dubbed as Islamic fundamentalist.
Added to this is the sentiment of Islamic revivalism that is going on throughout the Muslim world. Although the rulers of the Muslim countries are Western-trained secularists, the masses are generally Islamic--they take pride in their heritage in Islam as a civilization, as a culture and way of life, and as a religion. Thus, whenever free and fair democratic election takes place, candidates echoing their minds are elected.
This explains why the Western democratic governments extend all-out support to the non-democratic governments in the Muslim world, especially the ones suppressing the Islamic forces in the name of secularism. This further explains why these democratic governments quietly accept, encourage, support, and even actively participate in blatant replacement of democratically elected governments in Muslim countries by military dictators. It also explains why the people of Bosnia-Herzegovina had to pay so high a price to achieve their so-called independence and why the Kosovars are denied their right to self-defense, self-determination, and self-rule, while other states of the erstwhile Yugoslavia are allowed to achieve that. The USA and NATO issued a very strong warning to Serbia not to even look at Macedonia, while the Serbian atrocities in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosova were unleashed in full scale. Serbia did understand and acted accordingly. Why was this discriminatory treatment of similar situations? Does the fact that the Macedonian population is mostly Christian and that of the other two Muslim, is the cause enough to warrant this discriminatory treatment? I would rather contend that it is the fear of the perceived Islamic political system that predisposes the Western mind against the Muslims.
4. The Muslim (Third) World Peoples' Perception of the Western Governments
The obvious conclusion the people of the Muslim (Third) world draw is that the Western governments are the enemies of democracy and the people in the Muslim (Third) world. Therefore, they despise the Western policy towards their countries that deprives them of the opportunity to achieve and enjoy democracy and freedom in their own countries and subjects them to immense sufferings. This does not mean, as is sometimes implied by some Western commentators, that the people in these countries hate the Western democratic countries and their people. Nothing can be farther from truth than this commentary. It is very clear from the desire of a large number of people in these countries to leave their homeland and settle in the Western countries. It is not economic and professional opportunity in the West, as is generally implied, that really allures these people, it is democracy and freedom that they aspire, but do not get in their own countries and hope to get in the West. These people know the value of democracy and freedom, because they are deprived of them. That is why they love the democracy and freedom in the West and try to get them at any cost. Note that economically affluent and professionally well-placed people are the first ones who migrate to the West-even the ruling class send their children to settle in Western countries.
Because there is general dissatisfaction against the Western policy and because the majority of the people suffer as a result of this policy, some frustrated individuals express their sufferings by launching unscrupulous attacks against Western interests. There are some individuals from Muslim countries also who resort to such acts. Although such acts perpetrated by individuals from Muslim societies are very small in number and in proportion of the total of such acts, they are negative and unsupportable by Islamic injunctions. Moreover, they provide the Western publicity machinery the exact weapon it needs to vilify the monster of the Islamic system of its perception. Added to this is the silence of the Muslim community towards both the action and the publicity for a long time. Thus these negative actions by a few people cause serious damage to the Muslim image throughout the world, and the people, who in essence are terrorized, have been turned into terrorists in public perception, through media publicity and the inaction of the leaders of the Muslim community.
Another undesirable consequence of the unhealthy environment generated in the Muslim (Third) world by the Western policy is the breeding of extremism. Because the true Islamic (democratic) forces, which are moderate and humanistic as will be shown in the next section, are not allowed to function and grow, the extreme forces take advantage of the murky environment and emerge in positions of power. Not surprisingly, the actions they take and policies they implement are extremist actions and policies, having very little to do with Islam or democracy. However, the worst thing is that the West uses these actions and policies as Islamic, tarnishing Muslim image further.
5. Religious Minorities in Islamic Political System
The laws of an Islamic state will be based on the Qur'an and the Tradition of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH)-thus, they will be Islamic. But to know the status of non-Muslim communities under the Islamic rule, one must know the Islamic perspective about human beings, and the historical experience of non-Muslim communities in Islamic states whenever there were ones in practice. Islam treats each human being as a member of one human family created by one Supreme Authority, Allah,2 and having the same ancestral origin in Adam and Eve. However, it recognizes that these members of the same family are divided into diverse sub-families having their own system of faith and ways of living-These make them different peoples or nations. Islam not only recognizes peoples having different faiths and ways of living as separate nations, it makes it obligatory on the part of the Islamic state to extend the same protection to their faiths, lives, and property as it would to its Muslim citizens.
How is it possible to provide non-Islamic faiths the same treatment and protection Islam gets under the Islamic laws? Here lies the humanistic superiority of Islamic system-Islam does not force people to discard the laws naturally derived from their faith system that governs their lives, and to adopt a different set of laws as secular democracy does. Islam allows each religious community to live and govern its affairs-both religious and material-according to the laws based on its system of faith, customs, and traditions. This means that total internal autonomy is granted by Islam to each non-Muslim community living under its jurisdiction. The head of each community, not only enjoys complete control over spiritual and ecclesiastical matters, but also exercises "full civil powers to punish offenders, fine, imprison, or, in some cases, even award a death sentence; and Muslim officials have the duty to execute his orders." 3
The recognition of the fact that human life cannot be compartmentalized into life-spiritual and life-secular and that it is an integrated one life, leads this political system incorporate the system of faith in the lives of the believers, no matter how different it is from that in Islam. The secular democratic system fails to recognize this and divides human life into two entities-one separated from the other. This creates serious confusion and conflicts in the minds of individuals in living their lives and leads them to desert either the spiritual or the material aspects of living, thereby depriving them from enjoying the fruits of an integrated full life. The dissatisfaction created by this unfulfilled life generates the frustration responsible for many problems for the individuals and the society, some times almost impossible to control. Islam, by treating human life as a single integrated entity and accommodating various faiths into its system of governing, virtually eliminates most of these problems secular democracies face.
More importantly, the role accorded the minorities in an Islamic state is far more productive in making decisions that affect their faith, life, and work than that allowed in a secular democracy. In secular democracies, the equal rights and opportunities granted to the minorities are strictly in the law, but for all practical purposes, the majority decision is always the rule. Thus, it is next to impossible for the minorities to get their aspirations fulfilled most of the time. This is why it took the civil rights movement and an enormous sacrifice on the part of the African-Americans before they got the voting rights in the USA. In an Islamic state, this right is pre-granted and fully assured that each community determines its own fate and runs its own affairs, of course, under the complete protection of the state, but without any interference from it.
While the religious minorities are given the full protection by an Islamic state, they cannot be forced to fight in defending the country against foreign aggression. It is an obligatory duty for every Muslim citizen of the state to defend the country-lives, properties, and faiths including those of the non-Muslims, from foreign aggression. For the non-Muslim citizens, however, it is voluntary-they can participate in the fight if they so desire, if they do not, they can simply support the cause by making financial contributions (Jizya in Arabic) and the Muslims will sacrifice their lives for the purpose.
The historical experience of non-Muslim minorities in Muslim states testifies to the practical implementation of these Islamic injunctions. The studies by non-Muslim scholars and religious leaders, and comments and observations by people living such experiences are generally supportive of such practices. Below I present some of these observations. One must note that the perfect Islamic state existed only for certain periods of time-during Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and the four Khaliph's time and occasionally afterwards. The other periods of Muslim rule in the world had some characteristics of the Islamic system; therefore, the practices were not perfect. However, no matter how limited the nature of the practices was, there was something that stood out clearly.
Professor Bernard Sabella, himself a Palestinian Christian, writing on the socio-economic characteristics of the Palestinian Christians, explains how the Palestinian Christians were able to maintain and preserve their identity under the Ottoman rule.4 He writes that the Ottoman governing system "recognized the autonomy of the Christian communities to run their own internal affairs" and allowed them "to assume important positions." These autonomous Christians were so happy under this system, writes Faraj al-Sarraf5 that, when the crusaders attacked Jerusalem, instead of siding with their "co-religionists," they were found fighting the "Christian crusaders alongside their Muslim co-citizens." He further narrates, "When the crusaders occupied Jerusalem, the Orthodox Patriarch took refuge in Gaza. He later went to Jordan and did not return until Jerusalem was liberated by Saladin. Saladin restored to the Christians all their properties, monasteries, and their churches, including the Holy Sepulchre."
Palestine was conquered by the Muslim army during Khaliph Omar's rule in a punitive expedition originally sent by Khaliph Abu Bakr against the Byzantine emperor, Heraclius, for killing a Muslim ambassador. Fifteen years after the establishment of the Islamic rule, a Bishop wrote a friend, "the Muslims have become our masters, yet they do not combat the Christian religion: they protect our faith, respect our priests and other holy persons, and even make gifts to our churches and convents." British historian A. L. Maycock, in his book, The Papacy, writes that when the Muslims entered the city of Constantinople, the people declared that they preferred the "Sultan's turban to the Pope's tiara," in the same manner the Muslims were welcomed by the Palestinian Christians two hundred years earlier.
The Jews living under the Muslim rule in Spain consider the period to be the best in Jewish history. When the Muslims lost Spain to the Christians, the Jews of Spain left with the Muslims for Muslim countries. The Muslims ruled India for over one thousand years-the Hindus and other religious groups governed their lives according to their own respective laws. The fact that India is still almost ninety percent Hindu after a thousand years of Muslim rule, is a very strong testimony to the respect Islam gives other faiths and the autonomy it grants to their adherents. It will be appropriate to conclude this section with a quote from Franc Perco, the Archbishop of Belgrade. The Archbishop makes this frank and truthful observation in an interview with Italian newspaper Avvenire6 with respect to the destruction of the houses of worship in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosova. He says, "The KLA hasn't destroyed even one Orthodox Church. In Bosnia, the Serbs didn't leave one mosque standing, and there were a thousand."
6. Recommendations
The situation that exists in the Muslim (Third) world today is not healthy for anybody. The leaders of the Western world must realize that the policy they are pursuing is short-term oriented, counter-productive, and doomed to failure in establishing democracy in the Muslim (Third) world. To achieve the goal of democratizing the Muslim (Third) world, they must adopt a pro-people policy towards the Muslim (Third) world; this policy will generate the result in the long run. The leaders of the Muslim community, especially those living in the Western world, must understand that they have a very important role to play in achieving this objective for the Muslim world, by raising a strong voice against terrorism and simultaneously exposing the true nature of Islam through public education.
Islam stands for peace through justice-it is a religious duty for every Muslim to speak out against injustice and oppression wherever and whenever it takes place. Allah declares in al-Qur'an, "O you who believe! Stand out firmly for justice as witness to Allah, even though it be against you or (your) parents or (your) kindred, whether it be (the case against) a rich man or a poor man, for Allah is nearer unto both (than you are)." 7 So Muslims, specially the leaders, should not hesitate to say that the Western policy towards the Muslim (Third) world is wrong. They must also condemn terrorist actions-Islam does not condone any act that kills innocent people and destroys property even at times of war.
More importantly, they must educate the Muslim population to be proactive and positive, and to shun at any cost being reactive and negative. Allah enjoins, "The good deed and the evil deed are not alike. Repel the evil deed with good, and thereby turn your worst enemy into your bosom friend." 8 This is exactly the way the early Muslims achieved the success in establishing the Islamic civilization. The Muslims of today can also do the same thing by actively exposing the true nature of Islam and Muslim culture, dispelling the misconceptions about Islam, and thereby winning the hearts and minds of the people, especially in the Western world. It is imperative for the Muslims to understand that there are no alternatives to these. It is also important to note that Muslims must join hands with the good people of other communities for the cause of humanity-against injustice and oppression.
Since misconception about the Islamic political system is at the root of the Western policy mostly responsible for depriving the people of the Muslim world from enjoying the fruits of democracy and freedom, it is extremely important to expose the true nature of the Islamic political system. Islamic scholars have done sufficient works on Islamic economic, but very little on the political system. It is high time for the scholars to turn to this subject.
(The author is Professor of Economics at the University of Rhode Island, chief organizer of the annual University of Rhode Island Muslim Cultural Heritage Program and frequently displayed "Discover Islam and Muslim Culture" exhibits, founding President of the Southern Rhode Island Islamic Society, and President of the Islamic Council of New England)
Notes
1The American Heritage Dictionary, Second College Edition, 1985; Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston.
2Allah is Arabic name for God.
3See M.H. Faruqi, Impact, June, 1999.
4See Bernard Sabella in Christians in the Holy Land, The World of Islam Festival Trust, 1994; London.
5See Faraj al-Sarraf in Christians in the Holy Land.
6Avvenire, May 18, 1999, quoted in Impact, July, 1999.
7Al-Qur'an, 4:135.
8Al-Qur'an, 41:34.
*Contact Address:
Professor of Economics
University of Rhode Island
Kingston, RI 02881
U. S. A.
Phone: (401) 874-4119
Fax: (401) 874-2858
e-mail: [email protected]
Another version of this article is published in Middle East Affairs Journal, Summer/Fall, 2000