Iraq war : A clash of civilisations?
One of the questions asked by the West for sometime is "Whither Islam?"meaning where the Islamic world is going. This has become an accentuated issue after Professor Samuel Huntington published his book "Clash of Civilisations" in 1996. Huntington originally formulated the premise in 1993 in an article in Foreign Affairs as a reaction to Francis Fukuyama's 1992 book "The End of History and the Last Man". Huntington later expanded his hypothesis. Huntington says, "It is my hypothesis that the fundamental source of conflict in this new world will not be primarily ideological or primarily economic. The great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural." He argues "Nation states will remain the most powerful actors in world affairs, but the principal conflicts of global politics will occur between nations and groups of different civilizations. The clash of civilizations will dominate global politics. The fault lines between civilizations will be the battle lines of the future." Huntington further argues that the Islamic civilization has experienced a massive population explosion which is fueling instability both on the borders of Islam and in its interior, where fundamentalist movements are becoming increasingly popular. Manifestations of what he terms the "Islamic Resurgence" in Iran after 1979. The question is: Is Iraq a manifestation of Clash of Civilisations? Critics of Huntington argue that the Iraqi war is not a product of clash of civilisations. It is purely an ill-conceived plan by neo-conservatives in the Bush administration and many elements, such as false and distorted intelligence report, huge oil reserves in Iraq, democratisation of Iraq and arrogance of power of the superpower, underpinned the causes of war in Iraq in March 2003. They have argued against the theory of Huntington indicating that there is no Islamic monolith or one version of Islam. Furthermore, Huntingtin's identified Western civilizations are not united but fractured and show little internal unity. Western civilization includes both Protestant and Catholic branches; and Huntington disregarded the German and Roman cultural differences in Western Europe. The Islamic or Christian ideology is not uniform or rigid. Ideas and beliefs change over time and they are made of a variety of strands of thought and multiple interpretations. The Muslim world, like the Christian world, is severely fractured along ethnic lines with Kurds, Arabs, non-Arabs, all having very different views on Islam and the world. Moreover, the criteria of the proposed delineation are not clear. One can argue, for instance, that cultural differences between China and Japan are not more important than between China and Vietnam. However, Vietnam is put together with China under the label of the Sinic civilization while Japan is supposed to form a separate civilization. The distinction between the Western and Orthodox civilizations excludes non-religious factors, such as the post-Communist legacy or the level of economic development. It also ignores differences within Muslim communities. Amartya Sen wrote a book called "Identity and Violence: The illusion of destiny" as a critique of Huntington's main concept of an inevitable clash along civilization lines. In this book he argues that a root cause of violence is when people see each other as having a singular affiliation on the basis of religion, ie: Hindu or Muslim, as opposed to multiple affiliations such as woman, housewife, mother, artist, daughter, member of a particular socio-economic class, etc. all of which can be a source of a woman's identity. In his book Terror and Liberalism, Paul Berman proposes another criticism of the civilization clash hypothesis. According to Berman, distinct cultural boundaries do not exist in the present day. He argues there is no "Islamic civilization" nor a "Western civilization", and that the evidence for a civilization clash is not convincing, especially when considering relationships such as that between the United States and Saudi Arabia. In addition, he cites the fact that many Islamic extremists spend a significant amount of time living and/or studying in the western world. According to Berman, conflict arises because of philosophical beliefs between groups, regardless of cultural or religious identity. Causes of Rise of militant Islam
There is a view in a section of Islamic community that something has gone wrong with contemporary Islamic societies and the old glory of Islam during the Middle Ages has disappeared. Islamic states have become backward, stagnant and cannot show any achievement in scientific and technological progress. In a world of scientific conference, there is hardly any presence of eminent scientists from the Islamic world. President Musharraf expressed similar sentiment about the decline of Islamic community and at a conference in Islamabad in February 2002 said that the Islamic world was "the poorest, the most illiterate, the most backward, the most unhealthy, the most unenlightened, the most deprived and the weakest of all human race." Against this background, the orthodox adherents of Islam argue that the solution for advancement of Islam lies in going back to basics of Islam as interpreted by them. The writings of controversial Islamist, Syed Qutb, an Egyptian, hanged by the Nasser regime in 1966, have influenced many of the contemporary radical militants. The extremists found followers amongst the young urban poor and some students or former students. Another reason of militancy is arguably the deficit of democracy i.e. lack of participation of people in running the governments in the Middle East and the alternative strategy "Go to Basics of Islam" has been packaged in an uncomplicated manner that has gaind popularity and influence among youth and ideologues. Rise of Sectarianism
When Iran and Iraq fought war in the '80s, no one thought it a war between Sunnis and Shi'ia regimes. The Bush administration in 2003 through its pro-consul Paul Bremer encouraged sectarianism in Iraq. Today Iraq is confronted with horrifying pictures of not only blowing up Westerners, but also Shi'ias figting Sunnis. One US scholar of Iranian origin, Vali Nasr, has argued that sectarianism is now the defining characteristic of Islam. The tension in Iraq has its analogues in Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. A new tension is unfolding in the region between Shi'ia states, such as Iraq and Lebanon, supported by Shi'ite Iran and Sunni states, such as, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan. President Mubarak of Egypt caustically remarked, the Arab Shi'ia appeared more loyal to Iran than to their own countries. When Shi'ite Hezbollah (Party of Allah) launched missile attacks last year in July in war against Israel, three Sunni states denounced Hezbollah's actions for its "adventurism" and dragging the region into a dangerous war. Jordan's King Abdullah has called the region "Shi'ite Crescent". The scenario in the future appear worrying. Sectarianism appears to be a totally new game in the Arab World, and is different from the conflict between the radical Arab nationalists and the conservative pan-Islamists of the late '50s and '60s. There is no doubt that al-Quaeda is significantly responsible for many actions in Iraq against Shi'ite mosques and holy sites in Baghdad, Najaf and Karbala in Samarra. Differentiation among Shi'ites
Shi'as are not united either. What followers of Ayatullah Sistani believe is different from that of followers of Muqtada al-Sadr. They have divided themselves on the attitude of Iran. Grand Ayatollah Sistani does not accept the Khomeinist style of governance and his circles are less inclined to be involved in politics than other Sadrists who are determined to be political actors. Common issues for Shi'ias and Sunnis
Hamas has been pursuing an Islamist agenda, similar to Iran's view about Israel. Hamas is a Sunni group but it gets support from Shi'ite Iran. Hezbollah, a Shi'ite dominated entity gets support from Syria. Therefore, observers see that the circumstances need to be taken into account in dividing Shi'ite and Sunni's agenda black and white. There is no such clear division between them when it comes to a fight against oppression and injustice. Conclusion
What is overlooked is the Islamic societies are in uncertain transition at the 21st century and there are at least two groups, supporters of orthodox Islam and of moderate Islam. The strength of the debate between the two is likely to determine the future of Islam. It is noted 80% per cent of Muslim population are non-Arabs and they must come forward to boost the image of Islam as tolerant, and peaceful. Some suggest that moderate non-Arab Muslim majority states may spread the view of moderate Islam as against the version of orthodox Islam. The author is a former Bangladesh Ambassador to the UN, Geneva.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments