So the story begins like this. Four students, an Ahmadi Muslim, a Protestant Christian, a Sikh and a Hindu are crammed into a tiny dorm room at Princeton University. Each comes out three days later, having discovered the solution for world peace. Yeah, seriously. Last weekend, Princeton University hosted the 5th Annual Coming Together Interfaith Conference (CT5), a conference designed to counter a growing threat to our humanity: the gap in interfaith relations. While there were far too many inspirational attendees to mention, adherents from virtually every faith participated. There was Tom the Confuscist, who also happened to be a brilliant stand-up comedian. There was Cameron, the aspiring Christian Minister and Emily, an atheist with a zeal for humanity. There was Muhammad, a Muslim from Wake Forest with an incredible voice for Quranic recitation, and Irteza from Stanford, with a talent for Bengali music. Who can forget David, an Orthodox Jew who passionately sang G-d's praises during Shabbat, and Connor, who sang about his love for the Pope. Silent but profound was Sunil the Buddhist-Hindu, and due credit to Rahul, a devout Hindu who coordinated an excellent presentation on spirituality in action. But it's the American spiritual inaction that defined the ultimate need of the CT5 event. As a nation we have become so accustomed to letting people tell us what to believe, that we all too rarely seek knowledge ourselves. For example, at the CT5, I delivered a presentation on religious extremism that deliberately pushed people out of their comfort zones and forced them to think for themselves. The presentation asked non-Hindu's to defend Hinduism in light of last years terrorist attacks perpetrated by "Hindus" on Christians. It asked Muslims to defend Judaism in light of devout "Jew" Baruch Goldstein's 1994 massacre of 29 Muslims as they worshiped. Non-Christians were asked to defend Christianity in light of the Lord's Resistance Army and their campaign to establish a "Christian" government in Uganda based on the Ten Commandments, through murder, rape and maiming. Non-Muslims were asked to defend Islam in light of the much reported terrorist activities of the "Muslim" Taliban and Al-Qaeda. The result: while non-Christians defended Christianity quite well, for every other religion, there was an honest struggle. Lesson learned? Christianity was well defended because every single non-Christian in the room knew a Christian personally. Everyone had a Christian neighbor, co-worker, classmate, even family member. And this interaction was more powerful than the vitriol spewed from the likes of the KKK and WBC. Meanwhile, all too many had never met a Hindu on a personal level. Few had interacted with Jews, and even fewer had ever truly engaged a Muslim. And on a national level, this precisely is where all too many individuals put up a guard and refuse to proceed. "It's not my responsibility to reach out" is the most common objection. If [minority group here] is [positive attribute here] then they should come tell me at my [comfort zone here]. "Sure," I reply, "But when was the last time you invited them in?" And if your reason for not inviting them in is the 30 second fear mongering clip you saw on [sole news channel here], then you're not only part of the problem, but you're a major reason why the problem persists. One of the highlights of CT5 was an engaging lecture by Dr. Eboo Patel, a prolific writer and President of Interfaith Youth Core. Dr. Patel points out that in the late 19th Century, the Know Nothing Party, a political party that rose to power through fear and propagation of an imminent Catholic takeover, elected 75 members to Congress to proudly push their anti-Catholic agenda. In the mid-20th century, 47 percent of American college students surveyed proudly declared that they would never dare share a dorm room with a Jew. And now, in the early 21st century, we have the maniacal fear of Moozlums and their imminent shariah-enthralled domination of America. How else can you explain the 12 states (13 if you include Oklahoma) who have actually proposed anti-Shariah legislation? It took over half a century for Americans to break free of the shackles of religious bigotry and paranoia of Catholics and Jews, respectively. Do we really want to go another 50 years with Muslims? Prophet Buddha taught that "The superior man acts before he speaks, and afterwards speaks according to his action." St. Francis of Assisi wrote to "Preach the Gospel at all times and when necessary, use words." Prophet Muhammad declared, "He who is not grateful to his fellow man, is not grateful to God." Do we see a theme emerging? Until and unless we engage in actual interaction with our fellow man, and stop speaking when we have no actual personal experience, we resign ourselves to a fate of internal dissension and destruction. If you are a Christian, call a mosque and attend their Jummah service. If you are a Jew, call a Gurdwara and learn from the wisdom of Guru Nanak. If you are Hindu, attend a Catholic Mass at your local church. If you are Muslim, attend a Shabbat service at your local synagogue. Whoever you are and whatever you do, don't do nothing. This interfaith action is what the attendees of the CT5 Conference did last weekend. And guess what? No one lost their faith, but everyone joined a powerful movement to fight back against the cancers of bigotry and extremism that are threatening our humanity. And in joining this movement, they just might achieve world peace. Yeah, seriously.
the first thing for peace is to respect others feelings and belief. Islam teaches us that unless man learns to live at peace with himself and his fellow human beings, he cannot live at peace with God. In Islam, you shall find peace and tranquilit
No religion teaches violence and terrorism or killing innocent peoples in the name of religion. To unite mankind under one flag can even momentaril
No religion teaches violence and terrorism or killing innocent peoples in the name of religion. To unite mankind under one flag can even momentaril
Recent events in the Middle East have many commentators frantically speculating about what the future holds for Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria, Yemen, Iran, Bahrain, Libya, Syria and any other country whose citizens are choosing to rise up in protest. Across the region, people are bravely standing up, with many common demands -- chiefly, social and economic reforms, as well as an end to rampant corruption and human rights abuses. Who could find fault with that? Unfortunately, a whole lot of people.
Among Western nations and their respective media outlets, an intense fear has been perpetuated as a result of these protests: namely, that of an "Islamized" (whatever that means) Middle East. In this case, world leaders and commentators seem to be on the same page. They are terrified that more regimes will go the way of post-revolutionary Iran and become Islamic Republics as well. Stop there.
Is Iran really an Islamic Republic? No. The mullahs and ayatollahs have created a brutal dictatorship that is about as legitimately Islamic in nature as the Ku Klux Klan is Christian. In fact, the protests in Iran (both in 2009 after the fraudulent election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and more recently this week) have shown the world that even the Iranian people aren't moving in the direction of Iran circa 1979. Far from it.
But does that mean that Iranians are turning away from their Islamic roots? Again, no. In fact, they are turning toward a more Islamic republic, or better put, a true Islamic republic. So too, others across the Middle East (whether they recognize it or not) are turning toward more genuinely Islamic states.
If Western nations understood what a true Islamic republic looked like, I expect that they wouldn't be nearly as jarred or frightened by the recent wave of popular protests spreading across the Middle East. A bona fide Islamic republic is one that respects the rights of ethnic and religious minorities, one that doesn't torture, one that eschews institutionalized sexism and honors human rights. But above all, an authentic Islamic republic is one that is both democratic and secular.
The Holy Quran, the only uncontested source of revelation for all Muslims, explicitly states that there should be "no compulsion in religion" (2:256). Key to all Islamic belief and practice is the concept of niyyat or "intention." And no full, pure and independent intention can be achieved under a theocratic regime, especially (as is the case in Iran) when that regime is trying to force its adulterated interpretation of Islam down its people's throats.
Thus, the phrase "Islamic republic" is an inherently misleading one, for a theocratic state is, by definition, an un-Islamic state -- not merely because it interferes with the establishment of the pure intentions necessary to practice Islam, but also because it assumes the impossible. To become a Muslim, one must make the following proclamation of faith, or shahada: "I bear witness that there is no god but God and that Muhammad is His messenger."
As much as the leaders of the "Islamic" Republic of Iran would like us to believe that the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, is the voice of God on earth, they are sorely mistaken. Why? Because la ilaha ilallah. Translation: There is no god but God. For Muslims, God speaks through the Holy Quran, which teaches that God is as close to any human being as his or her jugular vein (50:16). As such, Muslims seeking union with the Divine possess no need for an intermediary -- no ayatollahs or mullahs or even imams.
Muslims around the Middle East are demanding their rights today -- not just as granted by their constitutions or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. They are demanding the rights guaranteed to them by the Holy Quran itself: rights to freedom, democracy, independence and yes, secular rule.
NEW YORK, NY |
1. Egypt’s not Iran: Talk of Islamic revolution is seriously premature. In Iran, there were a lot of different forces fighting the Shah, secularists, communists, socialists, Islamists, and all of them were of course nationalists. Some believed in armed protest, some believed in clerical rule, some believe in peaceful transitions of power. Unfortunately, a cycle of escalating violence, often centered around funeral processions for “martyred” protestors–something we’re apparently starting to see in Cairo right now–created a critical mass of people who refused anything less than the overthrow of the detested Shah Pahlavi.
Ayatollah Khomeini became the figurehead of the revolution, but even when he returned to the country in triumph, it wasn’t clear that Iran would become a theocratic Islamic Republic. That was the product of a number of decisions within and without the country, which were fueled by paranoia, suspicion and grievous misunderstanding. Iranians were rightly furious about our assistance in overthrowing their democratically elected government in 1953 – remember that whenever anyone says democracies don’t attack democracies – and suspected that we might try the same thing again.
So we got the hostage crisis, additionally fueled by Iranian anger over the CIA’s assistance for the Shah’s regime, and especially its brutal security services. We, on the other hand, were afraid that Iran was going to try to export its revolution (violently), and Iranian rhetoric indicated a fierce desire to overthrow American allies across the region. We threw our support behind Saddam Hussein and his invasion, and the result has been years of mutual animosity, suspicion and even violence. Egypt doesn’t have to go that way. And there’s no reason to suspect it will - but a big part of that depends on how we react, stage by stage.
2. Iran's Not Egypt: The difference between popular protests in Egypt and Tunisia on the one hand and Iran’s 2009 protests is this: in the former cases, the regime is symbolized by a single person, who rules at whim, and has no real ideology that resonates with the people. Iran’s government had democratic credentials, albeit of an imperfect sort, and even after the 2009 elections, a significant minority of Iranians have a stake in the Islamic Republic and many do find the regime’s ideology compelling at some level.
Third World nations generally push in one of three sometimes overlapping directions: they emphasize popular, often social democracy, they emphasize economic growth at the expense of popular participation, or they construct a narrative of resistance, of us against the world (in addition to Iran, we can think of Cuba, Venezuela, and North Korea in this league of revolutionary gentlemen). Such resistance narratives are harder to fight against, because they do echo a deeply felt sense of national pride.
Iranians find it harder to fight the regime because they are not just fighting a figurehead, they are also fighting an idea: revolution for Iran’s true independence after decades of colonial and capitalist humiliation. As a storyline, it’s not easy to push back against, especially because Iran did experience a century of manipulation by foreign powers. In Egypt, the dictator has no real ideology. In Tunisia, it was the same. People were behind Ben Ali (and Mubarak) out of a mix of fear and bribery, until they weren’t.
3. Presidents Like Pharaohs: While I’m obviously not a fan of authoritarian governments, distinctions do need to be made. In the Arab world, there are republics and then there are monarchies. Surprisingly, the monarchies tend to be more durable and more stable than republics. Republics have often featured messy transitions of power, exceptional brutality (Assad in Syria and Saddam in Iraq take that prize), and strange ideological proclivities (Qaddafi says it all) that have only recently exhausted themselves. Nasser was also a dictator, but he certainly stood for something.
The most recent round of republican dictators, in which we include Egypt and Tunisia are boring, uninspiring, and with no vision for their societies. In Arab monarchies like Morocco, Jordan, and the Gulf countries, the rulers have many family and patronage ties to their populations, creating reciprocal relationships. They also tend to be more creative with their wealth (again, compare oil-rich Algeria and Libya to Kuwait and Dubai). Thus we shouldn’t confuse what is happening in places like Egypt, Tunisia, and Yemen, for what might happen in other Arab states.
4. Think Democratic Caliphate: The shift towards more democratic politics in many Muslim countries is to be applauded, appreciated, and acted on. In countries like Indonesia, Nigeria, Turkey, and even Pakistan and Bangladesh, despite all their imperfections, democratic policies and procedures are taking root. There is a long way to go in some of these countries, and nobody’s saying that the way is perfect or even secure in all these countries.
But now that the Arab world is joining along, the push towards democracy could unleash serious economic growth of a meaningful kind. (As well as a huge change in how Islam is practiced, how Islamic institutions develop and how Muslims conceive of their interfaith and intrafaith identities.)
These are generally very young countries, with rapidly growing populations, and could become tremendous engines of economic growth. This is the real opportunity for the United States, and we can only find it if we shift out of a mindset that approaches Arabs and Islam primarily and even exclusively through a security lens.
5. Where Does Israel Fit In? Israel has had a pretty tough previous several years. Of course, over three decades ago, Israel lost a close ally in Iran. In the last few years, Israel has gone to war inconclusively with Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon. Hezbollah is now in control of Lebanon, to a greater degree than ever before, and has significantly upgraded its arsenal. The Palestinian Authority is weak and being discredited as you read this, in part through the Palestine papers Al Jazeera has released. Israel has lost the closeness of its relationship with Turkey, and is now in danger of losing its close alliance with Egypt (after Israel, Iran, Turkey, and Egypt are by far the most military powerful countries in the Middle East). But if Israel’s leadership can see it, democratic governments will be better for its security. What other option is there?
With destabilizing protests in Yemen, a country that seems to be ever on the verge of splitting up, popular discontent throughout the region could turn ugly, or at least strongly unfavorable for Israel and for us. We need to rethink who we are working with in the region, what our short term goals are, and what our long-term vision is for the Middle East. Our desire to create democracy, an explanation only introduced after the fact of war, didn’t do very much for Iraq. While there is a coalition government in Iraq, it came at the expense of massive violence and the deaths of hundreds of thousands. Conversely, governments we are allied with and supported have been overthrown in the past, popularly and indigenously, and it seems the same is happening in Egypt right now, another ally of ours, and another defeat for our policy. The new Middle East we thought would come from Iraq and Lebanon is instead coming from North Africa.
6. We’re Still a World Power. It’s Time to Take Advantage of That: In short, we lost the initiative, and local forces are now shaping realities on the ground in place of our behind-the-scenes diplomacy and authoritarian allies. When Arab and Muslim states go democratic, they will become much more assertive, but also much more responsible -- and thus better partners for us. With real mandates and popular governments, they are able to make difficult decisions on peace and progress, and they are also able to stand up and tell us when we are moving in an unwise direction. You can take the Turkish parliament’s 2003 refusal to endorse our invasion of Iraq as one example of that.
If we are willing to listen to the people, we will find for ourselves tremendous allies. course, means a lot of rethinking on both sides, but there is no reason why America and the Muslim world cannot be friends. With a president whose very name is derived from the same root as that of the dictator of Egypt (b-r-k, implying blessing, hence Barack and Mubarak), we are not the country we were even a decade ago. And there are many cultural, religious, social and civilizational similarities between Islam and the West. If we can intelligently capitalize on those, we can find a renewed energy and viable partnerships.
7. The American Option: Who else are the people of the Muslim world going to turn to in friendship? They clearly want democracy, by the tens of thousands, so why would they choose to ally themselves with authoritarian states like China and Russia? They only turn in those directions out of assumptions of incompatibility, and histories that need to be positively and responsibly transcended. This is America’s undeniable chance to seize the initiative, to show real global leadership, and to build partnerships that will allow us to help shape the world in a positively democratic direction.
But that will not be a unilateral project, and it will be all the better, for us and for the rest of the planet, as the product of real consensus. And I do believe, that despite his missteps, President Obama is able to see that and can point us in the right direction. The first step is to get out of the mindset that sees religious Muslims as antithetical to democracy, and that demands a conflict between Islam and progress. Muslims in the Muslim-majority world are already way beyond these stereotypes -- it’s time we get past them, too.
Here’s to courage and vision. We’ll need it, or otherwise things could become much more anarchic, much more violent, and much more horrible for the region.
Haroon Moghul is Executive Director of The Maydan Institute, a consulting and communications project devoted to enhancing understanding between Muslims and the West. He is also a fellow at the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding (ISPU). He graduated from NYU with a B.A. in Philosophy and Middle Eastern Studies, and he holds an M.A. and M.Phil. from Columbia University in Middle East, South Asian and African Studies. He is currently a Ph.D. Candidate at Columbia, focusing on Islamist political theory in colonial India.
Comments
129
Pending Comments
