Dare to Speak: Islam vs Free Democracy and Free Enterprise (I)
Chapter 6: The State of Islam Today
Caught at a fork in the road
Today, Islamic nations are at a fork in their roads to the future, and each has two hands firmly on the wheel, pulling in opposite directions.
The first hand is traditional Islamic society, which has been driving in a straight line ever since “The Closing of the door of Ijtihad” [1] in the tenth century. While Europe languished in the dark ages, Islam spent its first centuries going through a period of continual intellectual refinement. This process came to a halt, however, when a scholar named al-Qaffal issued a fatwa in the tenth century. This fatwa declared that all questions regarding Islam’s guidance for living had been answered, and that there was no need for further intellectual development. From then on, all questions were to be answered by references to previous scholars. [2]
The second hand belongs to modernizers who long for the West’s prosperity and power. These iconoclasts and leaders of a new ijtihad are constantly veering from traditional customs and seeking out Western ideas, hoping to grab the West’s keys to success.
Unfortunately, Islamic nations have been stuck at this fork for many years. They seek Islam’s glory days of old while simultaneously desiring the affluence, liberties, and power enjoyed in the West. They find themselves trying to travel down two divergent roads at once.
In Islam’s earliest days, Muslims readily assimilated the inventions and scientific developments of conquered lands. After “The Closing,” however, there was a long period of disinterest in the thoughts, inventions, and science of Infidel foreigners. This disdain for Western innovation gradually changed as the Ottoman Empire, which considered itself to be the center of the Islamic world, whose Caliph carried authority similar to that of the Pope’s, began to lose wars and territory. In the face of these losses, the Islamic world became painfully aware of its backwardness. This realization launched a frantic Ottoman effort to reassert Islam’s long-held belief that Muslims were the best and most advanced people in the world.
Initially, the only Ottoman goal was to import Western weapons and military tactics, but it was soon clear that these were only short-term fixes. [3] To reestablish Ottoman supremacy, the Empire would have to harness and then surpass the West’s creative energy. Thus began a wholesale importation of Western ideas, inventions, and political philosophies into the House of Islam.
The speed of Westernization accelerated with the 1904 discovery of Iranian oil, [4] which was then followed by other oil discoveries throughout the Middle East. Western drilling technology brought Western financing, and Middle-Eastern elites were soon awash with Western money. This money opened the floodgates of Western culture, with Middle Eastern elites giving their children Western educations and buying vast quantities of Western toys, such as automobiles, radios, televisions, and weapons. At a deeper level, the ascension of Western culture corresponded with a decline of Islamic culture.
Islam’s fall from grace followed the Ottoman Empire’s decision to enter World War I on the side of Austria and Germany. The Allies (France, Britain, Russia, [5] Italy, and the United States) meted out harsh justice at the Treaty of Versailles. Like Germany and Austria, the Ottoman Empire lost vast territories, which were either liberated, absorbed by the victors, or made British, French, or Italian mandates. This loss was even more humiliating because the Ottoman Sultan and Caliph, Mehmet V, had declared it to be a jihad – a Holy War.
The devastating outcome of World War I meant that Allah, as well as the Ottoman Empire, had been defeated by the Infidels. As with Nazism and Communism, Islam’s political ideology soon fell into disrepute when its flagship nation fell.
The final blow to Islamic statehood was Mustafa Kemal’s revolution in Turkey, which, in 1924, dismantled the Ottoman Empire, abolished the discredited caliphate, and left the leadership of Sunni Islam in disarray.
Germany’s rage at the humiliations of World War I opened the door for Hitler’s revenge in World War II. In the Muslim world, rage at the loss of Islam’s flagship nation was initially more muted because many Arabs felt that the Caliphate had been stolen from them long ago by the Turks. These Arabs had allied themselves with Britain and France to liberate themselves from a reputedly illegitimate Ottoman Caliphate. Sadly, the Arabs soon came to see the mandates of Britain, France, and Italy as Christian occupations rather than European ones.
To this day, there remains a raw sense of outrage against Christianity over the mandates. This outrage remains so fresh that the Muslim author of The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Understanding Islam wrote: [6]
With the dismantling of the Ottoman Empire…interfaith dialogue [took] on the tone of conquered and conquerors. The five nations that have done the most harm to the Muslim world – Britain, France, Italy, the Netherlands, and Russia – suppressed the teaching and practice of Islam and went to great lengths to set up missionary schools and other forms of institutional Christianity in the lands they controlled.
The inappropriateness of this interpretation becomes apparent when one notes that Ataturk’s secular revolution in Turkey did far more to dismantle political Islam and suppress Islamic practices than anything the Christian nations ever did.
The apparent triumph of Westernization in the House of Islam did not immediately create all of the benefits that Westernizers had hoped for. The reasons for this could fill volumes, but the bottom line is that the institutions of the West, which developed over centuries, were based on a set of political and economic practices whose benefits are not immediately obvious. The West had gone through a number of political and economic theories, and the ones that remained had survived difficult trials. The expectation that Western concepts would graft easily onto the social and cultural institutions of Islam without painful conflicts was a set-up for failure.
Unfortunately, these problems have given Islam’s religious leaders a pretext for rejecting Western institutions altogether. As The Koran for Dummies puts it: [7]
Scholars have almost unanimously agreed that when the Muslim community strictly adheres to this concept of “enjoining good and forbidding evil [according to the Koran],” then it is given leadership as an exemplary community on earth.
But, if the Muslim community leaves behind the practice of good [according to the Koran], fails to prevent evil [according to the Koran], and abandons sincere belief in One God [Allah], then it can no longer be considered the “best community.”
…
The Koran views striving for…God’s laws as a requirement for the social and moral preservation of the entire [Islamic] community. Many commentators, from the post-Islamic civilization period [post-World War I] in particular, argue that abandoning this responsibility causes the downfall of Muslim nations, which in their eyes have become subservient to the rest of the world instead of becoming its leaders.
Whenever Muslims perceive injustices around them, these religious leaders are quick to declare that “Islam is the solution!” [8] In fact, this is the slogan that Hamas used during the 2006 Palestinian elections, [9] to portray its opposition to Fatah[10] as a battle between Islam and secularism, and it helped produce a landslide victory. This slogan is code for “Reject the Infidel West.”
Unfortunately, these Muslim leaders have put the Islamic world into a difficult position because most modern ideas and institutions are not inherently Western. Instead, they represent progress in a universal sense. To reject these concepts because they came from the West is to reject progress and change in general. Therefore, the call of fundamentalists to revive Islam’s glory days actually sends the House of Islam back into the brutal and tribal past.
What follows is a very brief summary of the roads that Islamic nations have chosen and how they have fared on their journeys:
Turkey
Through the fierce leadership of native son Mustafa Kemal, hailed as Ataturk (“Father of the Turks”), Turkey resolved to pay the full price of change, and, after several tumultuous decades in the early 1900s, emerged as a secular and largely democratic nation. This remarkable achievement went so far as to offer religious freedoms similar to the West, despite its primarily Muslim population. Turkey’s ability to maintain this government for over 70 years has encouraged many Westerners to believe that Free Democracy can endure in the Islamic world.
However, Turkey’s prospects may not be as bright as they appear. After many decades, its grasp of Western institutions remains tenuous. Despite its success in comparison to other Islamic nations, there is a powerful undercurrent of Islamic resentment toward its secular government. Turkey has been the victim of numerous Islamic terrorist bombings[11] that were perpetrated by fundamentalists opposed to Turkey’s Western orientation. These attacks supplement those of Kurdish separatists, who are also Muslims but have an ethnic rather than religious axe to grind. Additionally, Turkey’s Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, is a member of the Justice and Development Party, which seeks to strengthen Islamic institutions within Turkey.
Despite the attacks of extremists, Turkey is not as secular as its reputation leads many to believe. For example, it effectively supports Islam as the state religion by bankrolling imams and making Islamic teachings a required part of public education, regardless of a student’s religion. [12] Extremists attack Turkey simply because it is not as Islamic as they would like.
Turkey’s ostensibly secular government, along with the modernist clergy it employs, is in almost constant conflict with the Islamic traditions of its people. One point of conflict is the education of girls, as unveiled in the following article:
Turkish campaign seeks to educate girls
By Louis Meixler, Associated Press Writer, September 28, 2005
Van, Turkey –…Mehmet Sadik Altin, the local imam, charges up to a lopsided concrete home with a mud roof and demands to know why the five girls inside aren’t in class.
“We don’t have money for bread,” Meryem Benek shouts…“How can I send my girls to school?”
…
Hundreds of teachers are combing city slums and rural villages as part of a massive national campaign to educate an estimated 520,000 Turkish girls who don’t go to school.
How well they succeed could hold far-reaching consequences: Ankara begins entry talks with the European Union on Monday, and the focus will be on issues such as human rights, gender equality, and Turkey’s need to improve its economy. Already, many European countries are reluctant to accept such a huge and poor country.
…
It is…a difficult effort that clashes directly with Islamic…traditions dictating that girls don’t belong in the classroom.
…
In some poor provinces, officials estimate that at least half of girls do not go to school — despite the fact education is compulsory until the age of 14…
…
A key part of the campaign has been mobilizing imams like Altin — who under law must be government employees — to convince conservative Turks that Islam is not against educating girls.
…
“Allah’s first order to the Prophet Muhammad was ‘Read!’” Tanriant said. “Allah did not say ‘Read boys!’ or ‘Read girls!’” he explained, sitting in his office in the corner of a mosque. [13]
That view, however, is controversial in many areas…while government imams support the campaign, unofficial religious leaders have tried to undermine it.
…
In front of a nearby house, Selahattin Yildirim stood on the stoop, smoking.
“Why ‘Hey Girls Let’s go to School?’” he asked. “It should be ‘Hey Boys.’ This is immoral. Why force people to send their girls to school?”
Turkey is an interesting case because its movement toward Free Democracy and Free Enterprise has brought it relative economic success, but at the expense of Islamic values and traditions. In fact, the driving force of its Westernization in recent years has been the government’s desire to join the European Union and reap economic benefits from membership. This goal has been hampered, though, by Turkey’s blemished human rights record, its support for North Cyprus, and an economy that, while outstanding among Islamic nations, is poor by European standards.
To the extent that Turkey remains backward, its backwardness is a measure of the grasp that Islam still has on its culture and laws. The tension between Turkey’s traditional Islamic culture, and the Western culture championed by its government, can be seen in this recent article:
EU starts historic Turkey membership talks
MSNBC News, Associated Press, October 3, 2005
LUXEMBOURG – The European Union opened membership talks with Turkey early Tuesday — a historic first step that would transform the bloc by taking in a …Muslim nation and expanding its borders to Asia and the Middle East.
…
The negotiations came amid fears that rejecting the only Muslim EU candidate country could destabilize the Turkish government, which has staked its future on building ties with the West…
…
Washington also has showcased Turkey as an example of a Muslim country that is not only pro-Western but also secular and democratic.
But many Europeans have…concerns about admitting a poor and predominantly Muslim nation.
In other words, after over 70 years of governmental commitment to Western institutions, Turkey’s stability still hangs in the balance. After all this time, the acceptance of Free Democracy by its people still appears to depend on the lure of gaining access to the wealth and the economic prosperity of Europe, rather than the popular acceptance of Europe’s traditions of Free Democracy and Free Enterprise. It is feared that any stop in momentum could cause the pendulum to swing back toward Islamic traditions.
Still, Turkey’s leaders have progressed farther toward Free Democracy and Free Enterprise than other Islamic nations. While each nation has its own unique history, their common strategy has been to pick and choose their favorite democratic institutions without accepting the whole package. This creates appearances of progress without accomplishing real change, such as a president who bequeaths the presidency to his son (Syria), and a “consultative council” (instead of a parliament), whose members are appointed by the monarch rather than elected (Saudi Arabia). The dismal results of these half-hearted experiments confirm that a nation that puts the strictures of Islamic Law on its people will not enjoy the benefits of Free Democracy or Free Enterprise.
While the prospects for progress in the House of Islam remain gloomy, there have been a few positive developments. One of them has been the revival of ijtihad. Unfortunately, the lack of any universally recognized clergy in the Muslim world, [14] together with Islam’s tradition of resolving religious debates through war, has led to further strife. Moreover, the bounds of ijtihad remain limited. While the Koran and the Hadith can be reinterpreted, they cannot be rewritten.
Iran
Iran is an Islamic nation that has managed to import some democratic forms into its government. Its version of Islamic Democracy conducts popular elections, but requires all political candidates to be approved by the Council of Guardians, a group of mullahs that is Iran’s ultimate legal authority. Therefore, the people of Iran participate in elections, but the Council of Guardians controls the outcome by eliminating candidates who do not subscribe to its views.
The net effect is a Shiite Islamic party reminiscent of the Soviet Union’s Communist Party. [15] The most recent example of how this Shiite party controls electoral outcomes was the 2005 elections, where the Council of Guardians eliminated all liberal and moderate candidates for President, plus thousands of liberal and moderate candidates for other offices. As a result, the presidency went to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, an extreme hard-liner, and the nation as a whole took a hard turn toward global militancy.
Although Iran looks like a democracy, this should not warm the hearts of the West. Not only are non-Muslims shut out of elected office, but Sunnis and liberal Shiites are excluded as well. Iran’s version of democracy does more than allow “the tyranny of the majority;” it actually uses this tyranny to serve Shiite interests. Therefore, there is nothing Free about Iran’s democracy.
Ayatollah Khomeini and the other founders of Iran’s Islamic Republic were clever men. They recognized the need for participative government, and decided to serve that need through democratic elections. They also recognized that the only way to guarantee a Shiite government would be to have Shiite clerics choose the candidates. Therefore, they designed a representative democracy that was guaranteed to always be Shiite. Unfortunately, by guaranteeing Shiite control, they disabled the democracy. Even worse, their Islamic blinders prevented them from realizing that they were destroying the democratic spirit they had dreamed of.
What Ayatollah Khomeini did not recognize is that Shari’ah is fundamentally anti-democratic, because it represents an unchangeable body of laws. In Free Democracies, all laws are changeable, according to the will of the people, through the votes of elected representatives. [16] Any attempt to impose Shari’ah on the democratic process puts suffocating constraints on legislators, because the only way to prevent un-Islamic laws is to create a body of religious overseers with veto power. This is what Iran actually does, because its Guardian Council does more than control who runs for office; it may also veto legislation that violates Shari’ah.
Other Islamic nations, and their relationships with the West
While the world’s other Islamic nations all reject Free Democracy and Free Enterprise, they do so to varying degrees. Some are Islamic democracies, such as the nations whose constitutions were presented in the preceding chapter. Despite their Sunni foundations, these governments have more in common with Iran than with the United States. Other Islamic nations are monarchies, such as Saudi Arabia, or dictatorships, such as Libya, or anarchies, such as Somalia.
Regardless of their forms of government, these nations’ relationships with the West tend to fall into three categories: Expedient, Mercenary, and Alienated.
Expedient. These nations share few if any common values with the West, but ally themselves with the West for political expedience. For example, Pakistan is a strong ally of the United States in its War on Terror, but its attempts at democracy have stumbled time and again. It is currently a dictatorship under General Pervez Musharraf. Just a few years ago, Pakistan actively helped the Taliban establish its Islamic government in Afghanistan.
The most obvious reason for Pakistan’s reversal in policy toward the Taliban is that it was on the brink of nuclear war with India at the time when President Bush declared “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.” [17] Pakistan’s leaders knew that if they continued to support the Taliban, which provided a safe haven for al Qaeda, the U.S. might rapidly join forces with India against it.
To gauge the true sentiment of Pakistan’s people, note that General Musharraf pardoned Abdul Qadeer Khan, the “founding father of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program,” after it was disclosed that Khan had sold nuclear secrets to Iran, Libya, and North Korea. [18]
General Musharraf lives between a rock and a hard place: He had to support President Bush or run the risk of invoking America’s wrath. By doing so, however, he has exposed himself to several assassination attempts by Islamic fundamentalists, [19] who accuse him of being either a Hypocrite or an Apostate. This is because Musharraf’s actions conflict directly with the wishes of many Pakistanis, who actively support the Taliban and Osama bin Laden. Despite the actions of Musharraf, many of Pakistan’s religious leaders consider themselves at war with the West, particularly the United States.
Mercenary. These nations struggle with the self-perception that they are selling their souls for material gain. Nations like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Bahrain are repressive Islamic monarchies that directly oppose Free Democracy. Their friendly relations with the West come from lucrative trade agreements that are simply too good to pass up. Besides a mutual desire for profit, there are few shared values between them and the West.
To grasp how little the West shares with these “staunch allies,” [20] consider the following article:
Saudi king cracks down on photos of women
Reuters, MSNBC News, May 16, 2006
RIYADH, Saudi Arabia – Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah, under pressure from Islamists to curb reforms, has warned local media against showing pictures of Saudi women…
…
Newspapers have broken with tradition and have…begun printing photographs of Saudi women beside stories, usually with hair covered but faces showing, which many Wahhabi Islamists consider morally wrong.
…
“There are photographs published in some newspapers…and one needs to think if he would want his daughter, sister or wife to appear like that. Of course, no one would,” the king was quoted as saying…
…
In recent months, many figures in the powerful religious establishment have used mosque sermons, Internet forums and public debates to decry a wave of “liberalization” they fear will secularize the country along Western lines…
Oil profits, and the Western goods they purchase, have left citizens of these countries feeling uncomfortable. On one hand, they are able to live in luxury. On the other hand, they see Muhammad’s Hypocrites in themselves. In addition, their religious leaders are quick to accuse their governments of siding with the Infidel West against Muslim brothers, as the Islamic scholar Hasa al-Banna alleges in a tract that rants against Islam’s mercenary leaders and their European allies: [21]
The Europeans worked assiduously to enable the tide of this materialistic life, with its corrupting traits and its murderous germs, to overwhelm all the Islamic lands…
They laid their plans for this social aggression in masterly fashion, invoking the aid of the political acumen and the military predominance until they had accomplished their desire. They deluded the Muslim leaders by granting them loans and entering into financial dealings with them, making all of this easy and effortless for the economy and to flood their countries with their capital, their banks, and their companies; to take over the workings of the economic machinery as they wished; and to monopolize, to the exclusion of the inhabitants, enormous profits and immense wealth.
After that they were able to alter the basic principles of government, justice, and education, and to imbue political, juridical and cultural systems with their own peculiar character in even the most powerful Islamic countries…
This being insufficient for them, they founded schools, and scientific and cultural institutes in the very heart of the Islamic domain, which cast doubt and heresy into the very souls of its sons and taught them…to regard as sacred anything…which had a European source …
Islam has taught the citizens of these mercenary Islamic nations to despise the House of War and its Infidel citizens. Therefore, they loathe their dependence on Western trade and call their governments sell-outs for allowing the West to corrupt their morals. Similarly, they accuse the West of cynically propping up undemocratic monarchies for the sake of oil and trade. [22]
This perception of corruption and social injustice, together with the free time that wealth provides, has led many young people in these nations to turn to religious studies. These young people have become vital sources of support for al Qaeda, as well as the other militant factions that battle against their rulers. [23] Beneath the apparent prosperity of these nations is an undercurrent of destabilizing forces that could rise up at any time, as it did during Iran’s Islamic Revolution.
For their parts, the ruling classes rationalize their trade with the West by using profits to finance pro-Islamic activities around the world. Their money allows them to pursue a global Islamic revolution through more subtle means. With it, they do things like support Islamic schools in the U.S., whose curricula include hadiths such as: “You will fight against the Jews and you will kill them until even a stone will say: Come here, Muslim, there is a Jew (hiding himself behind me); kill him.” [24]
George P. Shultz (former Secretary of State) and R. James Woolsey (former CIA Director) recently wrote an article that described the magnitude of this subversion: [25]
Estimates of the amount spent by the Saudis in the last 30 years spreading Wahhabi[26] beliefs throughout the world vary from $70 billion to $100 billion. Furthermore, some oil-rich families of the Greater Middle East fund terrorist groups directly. Whether in lectures in the madrassas[27] of Pakistan, in textbooks printed by Wahhabis for Indonesian schoolchildren, or on bookshelves of mosques in the U.S., the hatred spread by Wahhabis and funded by oil is evident and influential.
Thus, despite the din of their less sophisticated citizens, the oil-rich leaders of mercenary Islamic nations have prosecuted a subtle but successful jihad aimed at undermining the very nations that enrich them.
Alienated. Alienated nations flounder in states of chaos. They either have no valuable natural resources, or they are unable to organize themselves enough to extract them. They are typically not of immediate strategic or political importance to the West.
Two examples of such nations, which have commanded recent attention, are Somalia and Sudan. Their histories illustrate the conditions of alienated nations in general:
Somalia
Somalis reject the tenets of Free Democracy and Free Enterprise and are hostile to the Infidel West. However, because they do not have vast natural resources, they are unable to act on their hostility. Despite their lack of means, Somali hostility is clear.
In the early 1990s, Somalia was in a state of complete chaos. The preceding decades had seen colonization by Italy and Britain, followed by an independent government that attempted to reconcile democracy with Islamic tribal values. This period ended with a coup by General Mahammad Siad Barre, whose “scientific socialism” attempted to combine Islam with Communism. He also maintained close relations with the Soviet Union.
Siad Barre’s government deteriorated into a dictatorship over the course of the next decade. During the 1980s, his grip on power also eroded, resulting in a revolt in 1988 by the United Somali Congress (USC) under General Mahammad Faarah Aidid. By 1991 there was no functioning government and the remaining social structures were based on a combination of clan traditions and Islam. [28] These rival clans engaged in bloody battles for dominance, and their methods included burning rivals’ crops and cutting off their resources, to starve each others’ civilian populations.
These battles combined with a drought to create widespread famine. In response, the United Nations launched a major effort, known as UNOSOM I (United Nations Operations in SOMalia I), to bring food and aid to the starving people. When the convoys arrived, competing warlords attacked them and confiscated the supplies for themselves, preventing them from reaching rival groups. The United Nations then took up an offer from the U.S. to help create a secure environment for the delivery of humanitarian aid. Thus began Operation Restore Hope, through the Unified Task Force (UNITAF), a multi-national force led by the United States, which supplied 28,000 out of 45,000 troops. Its mission was to secure ports, airports, and supply lines to bring humanitarian aid to the starving people. While UNITAF was able to stem the immediate humanitarian crisis, the political situation remained chaotic. [29] The United Nations therefore started UNOSOM II, whose mandate was to “assist…the Somali people in rebuilding their economic, political and social life, through achieving national reconciliation so as to recreate a democratic Somali State.” [30]
What ensued was a battle between the UN and Somali tribal forces. These tribes opposed the UN disarmament programs and aimed to defend their clannish and Islamic ways against democracy. On June 5, 1993, UN troops attempted to shut down General Aidid’s radio station because it was broadcasting inflammatory messages against them. In response, General Aidid’s militiamen repelled UN forces, killing 23 Pakistani UN troops in the process. The United States then embarked on an expensive and bloody 5-month manhunt for Aidid. By the end of the manhunt, dozens of U.S. and UN troops were killed, as well as hundreds of Somalis, but Aidid remained at large. In October of 1993, the U.S. ended its search for Aidid after 18 U.S. soldiers were killed, with some of the soldiers corpses dragged through the streets of Mogadishu. [31] This showcase of brutality was immortalized by the movie Black Hawk Down. [32] In 1995, the UN terminated UNOSOM II after the loss of 153 peacekeeper lives and an expenditure of 1.6 billion dollars. Somalia continues to this day in a state of bloody chaos. One of the few things that unite Somalis is hatred of the West. It is clear that those in power would prefer their traditional bloody ways to modern democracy, which they view as foreign, Infidel, and a threat to their own power.
What is the lifestyle that Somali traditions give its people? The following Washington Times article provides a glimpse:
Dying for water in Somalia’s drought
By Emily Wax, The Washington Post, April 14, 2006
RABDORE, Somalia – Villagers call it the “War of the Well,” a battle that erupted between two clans over control of a watering hole in this dusty, drought-stricken trading town.
By the time it ended two years later, 250 men were dead. Now there are well widows, well warlords, and well warriors.
…
In Somalia, a well is as precious as a town bank, controlled by warlords and guarded with weapons…
…
“Even when local people are good and plan out water catchment systems, warlords just take it over. That’s why we have so many people drinking horrible water with worms and dirt and getting very ill,” said Abdul Rashid, a Somali nurse in Rabdore…
Sudan
Sudan has had a long history of foreign control and civil war, ever since the early days of Islam. One of Sudan’s historic weaknesses has been its multitude of ethnic fault lines, especially between its largely Muslim north and Christian-animist south, and between its Arab and black populations, regardless of faith.
In 1956, Sudan gained independence from Britain. Six years later, civil war broke out because the South feared Islam’s growing power in the north. In a 1969 coup, Jaafar Numeiri took control of the country and, in 1972, signed a peace treaty that gave the South partial autonomy.
In 1978, oil was discovered in southern Sudan. This discovery, which should have brought prosperity to the nation, inflamed old hostilities instead, as the North and South vied for control over the oil. In 1983, Numeiri declared Shari’ah to be the law of the land, and thereby triggered a new outbreak of civil war. This conflict provoked a military coup in 1985, which was subsequently replaced by a democratically elected government in 1986. Three years later, the democratic government was overpowered in another coup, this time by Omar Hassan Ahmad al-Bashir. Al-Bashir, together with his National Islamic Front (NIF), abolished Sudan’s parliament, established an Islamic state, and re-implemented Shari’ah.
In his effort to crush the non-Muslim South, al-Bashir used starvation tactics against the areas stricken with famine. International humanitarian aid intended for the victims was diverted to the Muslim North instead. In response to this confiscation, the U.S. stopped sending humanitarian aid to Sudan in 1990.
When the Gulf War erupted in 1991, Sudan sided with Iraq. After the war, Sudan opened its doors to Osama bin Laden and gave him safe haven, along with free reign to develop 23 terrorist training camps. Sudan’s leaders eventually asked bin Laden to leave, but only upon Saudi Arabia’s request in 1996. [33] Bizarrely, Sudan was a member of the UN Human Rights Commission from 1993 to 1995. Its membership allowed Sudan to block UN efforts to investigate and combat Sudanese human rights violations. [34]
In 1999, the oil that had been discovered in the South began to be exported, bringing substantial income to the nation. In the ensuing battles for that income, the government collaborated with Islamic militias to systematically enslave or eliminate millions of Christians, Polytheists, and non-Arab Muslims in the southern and western parts of the country. [35] From 1998 to 2000, Sudan was again able to block UN actions, through its renewed membership on the UN Human Rights Commission. [36]
While Sudan’s war with the South was settled by a peace agreement in 2005, [37] the conflict in the Darfur region continues to rage. In this region, the government collaborates with Arabic militias, called Janjaweed, to displace, enslave, or wipe out hundreds of thousands of black Muslims, because their race is considered inferior. [38]
In response to international protests, Sudan initially agreed to call off the Janjaweed, but then balked at taking action. As a result, international sanctions were imposed by a UN Resolution. [39]
Sudan’s tale of woe in Darfur is far from over, and if history has taught anything, more trouble can be expected in the South. As it stands, the South is largely autonomous, complete with its own legislature and ample access to oil funds for rebuilding its infrastructure. The key point here is that the government of the South, which desires Free Democracy, could only achieve its goal by separating from the North, which desires Shari’ah. It will be interesting to see what becomes of this dual system as the years pass.
The examples of Turkey, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, and Sudan reveal that the prospects for Free Democracy in the Islamic world are grim. At best, Free Democracy barely survives. At worst, it either deforms into something oppressive or dies completely.
Sadly, despite logic and evidence, many Muslims are in complete denial regarding Islam’s incompatibility with Free Democracy and Free Enterprise. Rashid Khalidi, in his book, Resurrecting Empire,[40] provides insight into how this denial works, when he discusses the difficulties of establishing democracy in the Arab world:
…[the] “democratic deficit” in the Arab world has absolutely nothing to do with the Islamic religion. Only…ignorance allows so many…“experts”…to make such claims, which are belied by the thriving democracies in three of the largest Muslim countries in the world: Indonesia, Bangladesh, and Malaysia, not to speak of Turkey, Iran, and all the Arab countries that once had parliamentary systems.
…Egypt did not cease to be a Muslim country during the thirty years it experienced parliamentary government, from 1922 to 1952, nor was it because of Islam that democracy failed in Egypt (or elsewhere in the Middle East). It had much more to do with the fact that the parliamentary system, and the Egyptian regime in general, were so co-opted and undermined by Britain that they were incapable of ending the seventy-two-year-old British military occupation or solving the country’s many other pressing problems.
Khalidi has an interesting theory, but he fails to address this question: If the “democratic deficit” “has absolutely nothing to do with the Islamic religion,” and its failure is due to British occupation, then why are only the Islamic members of the former British Empire so markedly unsuccessful in establishing Free Democracies, after nearly fifty years of independence? The answer is that Islam teaches Muslims to believe unquestioningly that Islamic ways are superior to all others; therefore all problems must be due to the corruption or interference of Infidels. To doubt Islam’s wisdom and law is tantamount to Apostasy.
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 1:
[1] Ijtihad is the process of studying the Koran and Hadith to derive a ruling on a specific issue. More generally, Ijtihad can be considered a scholarly inquiry into the application of divine law based on Islamic holy texts.
[2] How the Door of Ijtihad Was Closed, Islamic Voice, June 1998.
[3] What Went Wrong? Western Impact and Middle Eastern Response, by Bernard Lewis, Oxford University Press, 2002, page 20.
[4] Blood & Oil: Memoirs of a Persian Prince, By Manucher Farmanfarmaian and Roxane Farmanfarmaian, Random House, 1997.
[5] Though Russia had been disabled by its own Bolshevik revolution and dropped out of the war after losing substantial territories.
[6] The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Understanding Islam, by Yahiya Emerick, Alpha Books, a division of Penguin Group (USA) Inc., 2002, Chapter 17, section entitled Interfaith Dialogue, page 209.
[7] The Koran for Dummies, by Sohaib Sultan, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2004, Chapter 16, section entitled Enjoining Good and Forbidding Evil, pages 238-239.
[8] U.S. Muslims react to furor with deft diplomacy, by Fareed Zakaria, Newsweek, February 13, 2006 issue.
[9] Rise of Hamas concerns brewers, by Matthew Gutman, USA Today, April 10, 2006, page 6A.
[10] The political party of Yasser Arafat. It is secular in that its unifying goal is Palestinian nationhood rather than a particular religious agenda. It is a coalition of Palestinian Sunnis, Shiites, Christians, and secularists.
[11] For examples, refer to the following articles: Bombings at Istanbul synagogues kill 23, FoxNews/Associated Press, November 16, 2003, and Bus blast kills 5 in Turkey, CBS News/Associated Press, July 16, 2005.
[12] 2002 Report on Human Rights Practices, U.S. Department of State, section entitled Turkey, subsection entitled Freedom of Religion.
[13] As a side-note, it is interesting to see a Muslim claim that Muhammad was ordered to “Read!” by the Angel Gabriel while Muslims simultaneously claim that Muhammad was illiterate. Other translations of the story of Muhammad and Gabriel say that Muhammad was ordered to “Recite!,” which makes more sense. The confusion arises from the fact that “recite” and “read” are both meanings of the same Arabic word, “qara’a”, which stands for reading aloud. Qara’a is the root word for Qur’an (Koran), which means Recitation.
[14] How the Door of Ijtihad Was Closed , Islamic Voice, June 1998.
[15] Iran Elections Now In Doubt By Ali Akbar Dareini, Associated Press, CBS News, January 26, 3004.
[16] Even the United States Constitution has been subject to numerous changes. It has been amended 27 times in a little more than 200 years.
[17] President George W. Bush, Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People, September 20, 2001.
[18] Pakistan: Secret nuclear network dismantled, Associated Press, MSNBC News, January 5, 2006.
[19] Pakistan seeks six in assassination plots, by Paul Haven, Associated Press, August 19, 2004.
[20] An example of the many references to these mercenary nations as “staunch allies” of the U.S. can be found in Sporadic fighting marks 4th day of violence in Gaza, West Bank, by Mike Hanna, Jerrold Kessel, with Associated Press & Reuters contributing, CNN.COM, October 1, 2000.
[21] Five Tracts of Hasan al-Banna: a Selection from majmu’at rasail al imam al shahid hasan al-banna, translated by Charles Wendel, Berkely: University of California Press, 1979, pages 27-28.
[22] Saudi Arabia: Kingdom on Edge, by Frank Viviano, National Geographic magazine, October 2003.
[23] Ibid.
[24] Similar hadiths can be found in Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Numbers 176 & 177, and Sahih Muslim, Book 41, Number 6981.
[25] The Petroleum Bomb, by former Secretary of State George P. Shultz and former CIA Director R. James Woolsey, Mechanical Engineering, October 2005.
[26] Wahhabism is a fundamentalist Islamic sect that has strong and close historical ties to the leaders of Saudi Arabia. This sect has been granted near-governmental powers over the nation by Saudi rulers.
[27] A Madrassa is an Islamic religious school. Also spelled madrasah, madrash, medresa, or madressa.
[28] Library of Congress, Federal Research Division, Country Studies: Somalia. See http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/.
[29] United Nations Operations in Somalia I, United Nations Department of Public Information, August 31, 1996. See http://www.un.org/Depts/DPKO/Missions/unosomi.htm.
[30] United Nations Operations in Somalia II, United Nations Department of Public Information, August 31, 1996. See http://www.un.org/Depts/DPKO/Missions/unosom2.htm.
[31] Somalia Starts Over After Government-Free Decade, by Karl Vick, Washington Post, December 20, 2000.
[32] 2001, directed by Ridley Scott
[33] The Middle East for Dummies, by Craig S. Davis, PhD, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2003, Chapter 15, sections entitled Starving for a fight and A match made in paradise? , pages 234, 235.
[34] Information published by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and available at http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/2/chrmem.htm.
[35] Buying the freedom of slaves in Sudan Contributor: Associated Press, CNN, December 20, 1997.
[36] Information published by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and available at: http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/2/chrmem.htm.
[37] Documents that define this agreement include The Implementation Modalities of the Protocol on Power Sharing, dated 26th May, 2004, The Implementation Modalities of the Framework Agreement on Wealth Sharing, dated 7th January, 2004, and Southern Kordofan Annex, State of Southern Kordofan, Final and approved Text of 21st December, 2004. All of these documents are available through the United States Institute of Peace, an independent, nonpartisan federal institution created by Congress to promote the prevention, management, and peaceful resolution of international conflicts, established in 1984.
[38] Muslim killing Muslim in Sudan, by Sudarsan Raghavan, Knight Ridder NewsService, June 20, 2004.
[39] UN council OKs resolution to act on Sudan crisis, by Jonathan Wald, CNN, July 30, 2004.
[40] Resurrecting Empire, by Rashid Khalidi, Beacon Press, Boston, 2004, Chapter 2, entitled America, the West, and Democracy in the Middle East, page 62.
Recent Comments