 | |  | |  | |  | |  |
|
| I N S I G H T -------- Ideology of Pakistan Tufail Ahmad Iraq's Formation Justin Pirzadeh Italian Model Antonio Fabrizio America's Morality Elan Journo Walk on Water Antonio Fabrizio India in the West Tufail Ahmad Parliament of Man Molly Nixon Locke's Letter Antonio Fabrizio |
What basis for freedom and liberty in the Middle East?
By Edward Turner
Posted: July 4, 2007
To wipe out Israel President Ahmadinejad of Iran is determined to draw a nuclear curtain over a
growing list of allies in the Middle East - Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria and Iraqi Shiites. Saudi Arabia, an
oasis of money in a sea of poverty, each year pipes 2-3 billion dollars to the cause of the
dissemination of Wahhabism, the Islam of choice for terrorists; in Iraq and Afghanistan and cells
around the world Al Qaeda plots the West’s destruction. It is easy to forget our interest in the Middle
East, after all 9/11 was not just to protect our freedoms at home by fighting its enemies abroad. We
wanted to spread the tolerant values required for democratic, liberal society. Remember that? The
reality of our failure is jading.
The problem is not that the Middle East has flunked the test of freedom. It’s that Islamist thinkers have
ripped the paper up in our faces, cited their own test called the Koran and announced it is we who fail.
How to solve a problem like freedom for the demagogue Islamists is in terms of the freedom of a
cultural entity called Islam, not any human. In this way the authors of the Cairo Declaration on Human
Rights in Islam have eschewed inalienable rights for Sharia law as the ultimate basis for freedom.
This means while Islam’s freedom is absolute, protected by blasphemy and apostasy laws, the
unfortunate human in an Islamic state will get the death sentence if he offends this culture called
“Islam” (in Western democracies with Muslim minorities 24 hour police protection).
The problem is not only with the Islamists. Vitriolic speeches of Mullahs in the Mosques, the
persecution of Israelis in media underline the fact that the masses – possibly millions – in the Middle
East may also be far happier with unlimited freedom for a millennium year-old prescription for war on
infidels. Imams don’t draw crowds by urging their congregations and governments to copy Israel, the
only Middle East state which Freedom House marks “free”. Parents may prefer their children to be
educated with a more readily available Islamist, not Western textbook; where they could learn of the
vigorous Jewish weed growing in the garden of Islam, seeded by a Zionist conspiracy, watered by
Western technology, fed by the corrosive, decadent philosophy of individualism against which their
sons must fight jihad for Islam.
Can there be a basis for freedom in a region in which opposition to the existence of Israel is a subject
for children’s television?
It cannot be said that the Middle East hasn’t known better. As the geographic crossroads of three
continents the Middle East has had more exposure to Western ideas than far-flung Chile and Ghana
(both “free” according to Freedom House). Through Islamic conquest, Christian colonialism, Cold war
diplomacy and modern media, the Middle East, over the last thousand years, has had exposure to as
rich an array of ideas as access to textile and spice trades. Greek rationalism, the Western
Enlightenment, socialism and capitalism, all have passed through and shifted under the sands.
That the cream of the West has not risen and been espoused by the best must be food for thought for
those who believe Islam can be displaced merely through intense bombardment of western memes
(the premise of democracy in Iraq). It is an old idea that the competition of ideas at this global
crossroads actually created Islam; an ideology that unifies different people by forcing them to give up
all their freedoms for the Sharia. We should now look again at this idea: perhaps Western ideas keep
Islam in evolution today?
William Zartman locates the idea of dialectic between Islam and the forces of modernisation with an
obscure 14th century Islamic philosopher called Abdurrahman ibn Khaldun. Throughout history,
according to Zartman, there have been moments of “synthesis” between Islamic and western ideas.
But the milk of modernisation always turns sour and begets a “anti-thesis” – a backlash, in his words,
“in the form of a religious revival that castigates the incumbent political culture for its materialism and
worldliness.” What might be called Khaldun waves – repeated Islamist reactions to gained freedoms -
shows why every day in the Middle East may seem like Groundhog Day.
At the turn of the 20th century colonial power led to strong secular monarchist states; following World
War I, this saw the demise of the Ottoman Caliphate. Yet Mustafa Kemal Atatürk’s Republic of Turkey
was only five years old when the first Khaldun wave struck back. In 1928 the Muslim Brotherhood was
formed by Hassan al-Banna, a group that was to be dedicated to overthrowing the colonialists,
reinstating a caliphate and a united Muslim state.
During the Cold War Nasser of Egypt, riding on nationalist fervour, shook off the colonialists and took to
socialist reforms. At this time the Islamists of the Muslim Brotherhood who helped undermine the
colonialists were no longer wanted and, in 1966, Nasser executed the Islamist philosopher Sayyid
Qubt. In Iran, under the American-supported Persian Shah, women walked freely in public in
sunglasses and short skirts. At the apex of this Cold War modernisation Egypt signed a peace treaty
with Israel; however the anti-thesis had already begun, with the birth of modern terrorism. The second
Khaldun wave proceeded with a vengeance. In the Occupied Territories Black September and Yassar
Arafat’s PLO; in Iran the Ayatollah Khomeini and his Islamist revolutionaries; in Lebanon, Hezbollah
(who bombed American Marines out of Beirut); in Egypt Anwar Sadat soon met the assassin’s bullet.
The first Gulf war may not have catalysed George Bush’s “New World Order” but it did mark a further
point of modernisation. In 1994 Palestinian intifada gave way to a peace treaty with Israel and Jordan.
The Gulf literal, which had become a play-pen for Western tanks and aircraft carriers, toyed with minor
democratic reforms and rights for women. At the millennium quiet voices even whispered Iran had
reformed; an up-welling of bright-eyed youth fed up with the Khomeini revolution, in-tune with the West.
Since 9/11 we have again been disappointed with this progress as we fight a third Khaldun wave
against attempts to free people in the Middle East from Islam. After secular Saddam, through
necessity, was removed from Iraq, Ahmadinejad’s Iran and the Wahhabi-bank of Saudi Arabia - the
worst of Shia and Sunni Islam - have become more extreme. We are assaulted by the sick theatre of a
holocaust denial conference; suicide terrorism in Western capitals; developed regional and
international Islamist propaganda network (Al-Manar TV, youtube videos, Saudi-funded Council on
American Islamic Relations litigation); all dedicated to anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism. Secular
Turkey is under strain from Islamists, perhaps close to a coup; Lebanon and Palestinian territories are
fighting a civil war with radical Islamists. In Tehran Iranian women and men are beaten on the spot for
“inappropriate dress” (for women, uncovered hair; for men, wearing a football shirt).
The existence of Khaldun waves show liberal ideas and technology do frequently make their way to the
Middle East but are just as quickly driven back by forces seeking domination for Islam.
While ibn Khaldun saw the swing of power between “desert zealots and urban materialists” – a
dichotomy between the country and the city - the conflict in the Middle East is actually between time and
space. The irrationalism of Islam seeks mastery over space, and must enter “the city” to re-conquer it;
freedom exists in technological evolution through time, and therefore always will find a way back to “the
city”. The attacks on Israel, destruction of mountain Buddhas, the historic sites under the bulldozer in
Mecca, the beatings by Iranians by moral police are examples of Islam’s fight to destroy rivals in space.
In summary, the repeated injection of Western ideas and technology has surely spread technology
and ideas of freedom but seems to as successfully evolve Islam. There is no basis for freedom in the
Middle East with political Islam. Time and its bearer “technology” may guarantee another
modernisation wave – there is nothing more subversive than a teenager with access to a mobile
phone text message system - but are gains and setbacks ad infinitum worth fighting for? Only if
political Islam can be beaten.
The modern fate of the Islamic philosophers– al-Kindi, Al-Farabi, Averroes and Avicenna – is illustrative
of the difficulty of this. When Osama bin Laden harks back 1000 years to a glorious Islamic age he
does not mean to reinvigorate its philosophical fruits, based as they were on Greek rationalism. Al-
Farabi (870-950), according to Muhsin Mahdi, thought democracy was not the most virtuous regime
but the best regime in the absence of the most virtuous. In 2007 little is heard of Al-Farabi’s
encouragement for democracy in Islam. Either evidence for something for freedom to build on or
further proof there is nothing there at all. Time will tell.
### ### ###
Edward Turner is a freelance journalist based in London.
By Edward Turner
Posted: July 4, 2007
To wipe out Israel President Ahmadinejad of Iran is determined to draw a nuclear curtain over a
growing list of allies in the Middle East - Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria and Iraqi Shiites. Saudi Arabia, an
oasis of money in a sea of poverty, each year pipes 2-3 billion dollars to the cause of the
dissemination of Wahhabism, the Islam of choice for terrorists; in Iraq and Afghanistan and cells
around the world Al Qaeda plots the West’s destruction. It is easy to forget our interest in the Middle
East, after all 9/11 was not just to protect our freedoms at home by fighting its enemies abroad. We
wanted to spread the tolerant values required for democratic, liberal society. Remember that? The
reality of our failure is jading.
The problem is not that the Middle East has flunked the test of freedom. It’s that Islamist thinkers have
ripped the paper up in our faces, cited their own test called the Koran and announced it is we who fail.
How to solve a problem like freedom for the demagogue Islamists is in terms of the freedom of a
cultural entity called Islam, not any human. In this way the authors of the Cairo Declaration on Human
Rights in Islam have eschewed inalienable rights for Sharia law as the ultimate basis for freedom.
This means while Islam’s freedom is absolute, protected by blasphemy and apostasy laws, the
unfortunate human in an Islamic state will get the death sentence if he offends this culture called
“Islam” (in Western democracies with Muslim minorities 24 hour police protection).
The problem is not only with the Islamists. Vitriolic speeches of Mullahs in the Mosques, the
persecution of Israelis in media underline the fact that the masses – possibly millions – in the Middle
East may also be far happier with unlimited freedom for a millennium year-old prescription for war on
infidels. Imams don’t draw crowds by urging their congregations and governments to copy Israel, the
only Middle East state which Freedom House marks “free”. Parents may prefer their children to be
educated with a more readily available Islamist, not Western textbook; where they could learn of the
vigorous Jewish weed growing in the garden of Islam, seeded by a Zionist conspiracy, watered by
Western technology, fed by the corrosive, decadent philosophy of individualism against which their
sons must fight jihad for Islam.
Can there be a basis for freedom in a region in which opposition to the existence of Israel is a subject
for children’s television?
It cannot be said that the Middle East hasn’t known better. As the geographic crossroads of three
continents the Middle East has had more exposure to Western ideas than far-flung Chile and Ghana
(both “free” according to Freedom House). Through Islamic conquest, Christian colonialism, Cold war
diplomacy and modern media, the Middle East, over the last thousand years, has had exposure to as
rich an array of ideas as access to textile and spice trades. Greek rationalism, the Western
Enlightenment, socialism and capitalism, all have passed through and shifted under the sands.
That the cream of the West has not risen and been espoused by the best must be food for thought for
those who believe Islam can be displaced merely through intense bombardment of western memes
(the premise of democracy in Iraq). It is an old idea that the competition of ideas at this global
crossroads actually created Islam; an ideology that unifies different people by forcing them to give up
all their freedoms for the Sharia. We should now look again at this idea: perhaps Western ideas keep
Islam in evolution today?
William Zartman locates the idea of dialectic between Islam and the forces of modernisation with an
obscure 14th century Islamic philosopher called Abdurrahman ibn Khaldun. Throughout history,
according to Zartman, there have been moments of “synthesis” between Islamic and western ideas.
But the milk of modernisation always turns sour and begets a “anti-thesis” – a backlash, in his words,
“in the form of a religious revival that castigates the incumbent political culture for its materialism and
worldliness.” What might be called Khaldun waves – repeated Islamist reactions to gained freedoms -
shows why every day in the Middle East may seem like Groundhog Day.
At the turn of the 20th century colonial power led to strong secular monarchist states; following World
War I, this saw the demise of the Ottoman Caliphate. Yet Mustafa Kemal Atatürk’s Republic of Turkey
was only five years old when the first Khaldun wave struck back. In 1928 the Muslim Brotherhood was
formed by Hassan al-Banna, a group that was to be dedicated to overthrowing the colonialists,
reinstating a caliphate and a united Muslim state.
During the Cold War Nasser of Egypt, riding on nationalist fervour, shook off the colonialists and took to
socialist reforms. At this time the Islamists of the Muslim Brotherhood who helped undermine the
colonialists were no longer wanted and, in 1966, Nasser executed the Islamist philosopher Sayyid
Qubt. In Iran, under the American-supported Persian Shah, women walked freely in public in
sunglasses and short skirts. At the apex of this Cold War modernisation Egypt signed a peace treaty
with Israel; however the anti-thesis had already begun, with the birth of modern terrorism. The second
Khaldun wave proceeded with a vengeance. In the Occupied Territories Black September and Yassar
Arafat’s PLO; in Iran the Ayatollah Khomeini and his Islamist revolutionaries; in Lebanon, Hezbollah
(who bombed American Marines out of Beirut); in Egypt Anwar Sadat soon met the assassin’s bullet.
The first Gulf war may not have catalysed George Bush’s “New World Order” but it did mark a further
point of modernisation. In 1994 Palestinian intifada gave way to a peace treaty with Israel and Jordan.
The Gulf literal, which had become a play-pen for Western tanks and aircraft carriers, toyed with minor
democratic reforms and rights for women. At the millennium quiet voices even whispered Iran had
reformed; an up-welling of bright-eyed youth fed up with the Khomeini revolution, in-tune with the West.
Since 9/11 we have again been disappointed with this progress as we fight a third Khaldun wave
against attempts to free people in the Middle East from Islam. After secular Saddam, through
necessity, was removed from Iraq, Ahmadinejad’s Iran and the Wahhabi-bank of Saudi Arabia - the
worst of Shia and Sunni Islam - have become more extreme. We are assaulted by the sick theatre of a
holocaust denial conference; suicide terrorism in Western capitals; developed regional and
international Islamist propaganda network (Al-Manar TV, youtube videos, Saudi-funded Council on
American Islamic Relations litigation); all dedicated to anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism. Secular
Turkey is under strain from Islamists, perhaps close to a coup; Lebanon and Palestinian territories are
fighting a civil war with radical Islamists. In Tehran Iranian women and men are beaten on the spot for
“inappropriate dress” (for women, uncovered hair; for men, wearing a football shirt).
The existence of Khaldun waves show liberal ideas and technology do frequently make their way to the
Middle East but are just as quickly driven back by forces seeking domination for Islam.
While ibn Khaldun saw the swing of power between “desert zealots and urban materialists” – a
dichotomy between the country and the city - the conflict in the Middle East is actually between time and
space. The irrationalism of Islam seeks mastery over space, and must enter “the city” to re-conquer it;
freedom exists in technological evolution through time, and therefore always will find a way back to “the
city”. The attacks on Israel, destruction of mountain Buddhas, the historic sites under the bulldozer in
Mecca, the beatings by Iranians by moral police are examples of Islam’s fight to destroy rivals in space.
In summary, the repeated injection of Western ideas and technology has surely spread technology
and ideas of freedom but seems to as successfully evolve Islam. There is no basis for freedom in the
Middle East with political Islam. Time and its bearer “technology” may guarantee another
modernisation wave – there is nothing more subversive than a teenager with access to a mobile
phone text message system - but are gains and setbacks ad infinitum worth fighting for? Only if
political Islam can be beaten.
The modern fate of the Islamic philosophers– al-Kindi, Al-Farabi, Averroes and Avicenna – is illustrative
of the difficulty of this. When Osama bin Laden harks back 1000 years to a glorious Islamic age he
does not mean to reinvigorate its philosophical fruits, based as they were on Greek rationalism. Al-
Farabi (870-950), according to Muhsin Mahdi, thought democracy was not the most virtuous regime
but the best regime in the absence of the most virtuous. In 2007 little is heard of Al-Farabi’s
encouragement for democracy in Islam. Either evidence for something for freedom to build on or
further proof there is nothing there at all. Time will tell.
### ### ###
Edward Turner is a freelance journalist based in London.
| (c) 2005-09 New Criterion Foundation, London |