Chapter XV
Muslim World and the United States: Friends or Foes?
September 11 (2001) seems to have become a landmark date for many observers of international events and research scholars and journalists are referring to this date in their analyses of current developments. Such a reference may be compared only with July 14, 1789 the date of the fall of Bastille, a symbol of royal despotism, and which according to most historians, marked the end of the so-called Old Regime in France. Many observers today hold the view that the attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Washington DC were attacks on the symbols of capitalist European/ Western civilization rather than an isolated event of terrorism. The United States government has held a small Muslim group responsible for the event, while many others consider the event as an extension of Samuel Huntington’s theory of clash of civilizations. While most Muslims have emphatically condemned the attack, many of them do not seem to be convinced with the amount of evidence produced by the United States government on the involvement of any Muslim group in the attack. While on the one hand this event has let the United States to launch military strikes against the Taliban government in Afghanistan, it has also led the American president to visit Islamic centers in the United States and to quote from the Muslim holy book, the Qur’an, in order to convince the Muslims that the American action was aimed at only seeking justice, and not against Islam or Muslims. The President has declared the American struggle as a just struggle between good and evil and for the continuity of human civilization. No matter how one views these events, the developments have definitely raised questions about the nature of the relationship between the United States and the Muslims. This essay proposes to discuss this relationship. We, however, first need to define the term Muslim world.
The Muslim world is not a political, economic, or even a geographical entity, and therefore, one needs to define the term Muslim world1 before initiating any discussion on the subject. The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) claims to be based on the Qur’anic concept of ummah, and claims to represent all Muslims in our contemporary world.2 For our discussion, therefore, we shall hold the OIC as the representative of world Muslim community. The OIC is an international organization composed of 57 mostly Muslim majority nation-states, who have pooled “their resources together, combine their efforts and speak with one voice to safeguard the interests and secure the progress and well-being of their peoples and of all Muslims in the world.”3 Naturally it needed and has developed policies of interaction with other international organizations and leading world powers. The OIC adopts resolutions in order to express its views on world events, and this essay examines the relationship between the OIC and the United States on the basis of numerous resolutions that it has adopted till today.
The decision to establish the OIC was taken at a summit conference of most Muslim-majority nation states in response to the ignition of the Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem by a Jewish terrorist in 1969. Most of the participating states belonged to the pro-US camp in the then bi-polar world. Since then in its numerous resolutions the OIC has identified France, the United Kingdom, the USA, and the former USSR as the major powers in world affairs, and has appealed to them to work for peace and justice, particularly in connection with the Muslims. However, because the OIC was established at a bi-polar world atmosphere, its resolutions mainly focused on the USA and the former USSR as major powers. Also most of the OIC resolutions in relation to major powers were adopted in connection to what the OIC called occupation of Muslim lands by foreign forces. And in this mainly Palestine and occasionally Afghanistan (Soviet occupation during the 1980s) were identified as the Muslim lands that were occupied by foreign forces. In this essay we shall focus our discussion mostly on OIC resolutions on Palestine, and since historical developments in Palestine in the twentieth century have frequently been referred in this connection, we shall also refer to some major developments in Palestine leading to the creation of the state of Israel. Since Huntington’s theory of clash of civilizations plays a very prominent role in the determination of US policies, we shall also discuss his views extensively in this essay. In his work Huntington accused Muslim leaders of exploiting Western values in order to achieve independence from European colonialism, therefore, we shall also discuss the question of values in both Islamic and Western civilizations in the concluding section of this essay.
OIC Resolutions and the US
Although in the 1960s when the OIC was formed, most of its founding members belonged to the pro-US camp, its stance on the issue of Palestine suggests that the organization has gradually developed an antagonistic attitude toward all major powers. This attitude has been strongest against the United States because of what the OIC calls unconditional US support for Israel. At the end of the First Islamic Summit Conference (1969) Muslim heads of state appealed to France, the United Kingdom, the USA, and the USSR to intervene against what they saw as Israeli atrocities in Jerusalem and Palestine. Thereafter the OIC gradually began to identify those major powers, which it thought were supporting Israel militarily, financially, and morally. In the preamble to the first resolution of the Third Foreign Ministers Conference (1972), the United States was singled out as the main supporter of Israel and requested the US to compel Israel to accept the UN resolutions on Palestine.4
The attitude of the OIC toward the United States became more hostile over the next few years. In a resolution adopted at the Fourth Conference of Foreign Ministers (1973), the OIC identified the US as the main supplier of arms and other material to what it called the aggressor Israel. But it did not condemn the United States for this act. In resolutions adopted at latter conferences it condemned all major powers, which supplied Israel with material support, without naming any particular country. At the Ninth Conference of Foreign Ministers (1978), the resolutions on the issue of Palestine, though strongly worded still condemned all powers supporting Israel without mentioning any one by name in the body of the resolution. In the preamble of the resolution the US was mentioned as the main supplier of arms to Israel, and the resolution deplored US vetoes at the United Nations Security Council on behalf of Israel. The Camp David Accord between the OIC member state Egypt and Israel, which was sponsored by the US in September 1978, brought a drastic change in its approach toward the USA. In the Foreign Ministers Conference following the Accord, the OIC explicitly condemned the role of the United States in the Middle East in all its resolutions. In a strongly worded resolution in May 1979 the OIC expressed that:
The Conference condemns the Camp David Accord signed in September 1978 and the Washington Treaty signed between Israel and the regime in Egypt on March 26, 1979, and considers them a blatant departure from the Charter of the Organization of the Islamic Conference and a violation of international law and the United Nations resolutions related to the Palestinian problem and the occupied Palestinian and Arab territories, and repudiates all their results and effects and considers them null, void and not binding on Arabs and Muslims, particularly on the Palestinian people. It further considers these agreements a bilateral settlement that ignores the core of the problem – namely the Palestinian question – an attempt to liquidate the inalienable national rights of the Palestinian people, notably their right to return to their homeland, to self-determination and to the establishment of their national territory. Accordingly the Conference calls for resistance to the agreements by all ways and means, and condemns the role of the United States of America in the conclusion of these agreements and the attempts to impose them on the Palestinian people.5
The OIC continued with this sort of rhetoric in the resolutions in its later meetings as well.6 In contrast to its frequent condemnation of the United States, after the Camp David Accord, the OIC has condemned the Soviet Union only once. It condemned the Soviet Union in the resolution adopted in the extraordinary session of the Foreign Ministers Conference (1980) immediately after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. In latter resolutions on the subject of Afghanistan, however, it has only demanded “total unconditional withdrawal of foreign troops from Afghanistan” without condemning the Soviet Union for the invasion. This is perhaps because of the consistent Soviet support for the Palestinian cause.
After these two major incidents involving leading superpowers in the affairs of Muslim countries, i.e., the Camp David Accord (1978) and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (1979), the OIC’s concern over major powers’ involvements in Muslim affairs appears to have increased. The most disturbing element of this involvement for the OIC was the establishment of military bases by these powers in OIC countries. In a 1980 resolution entitled “The Establishment of Foreign Military Bases in Some Islamic States,” the OIC defined its fundamental stand on the issue one of “rejecting and condemning any attempt by Big Powers to establish military bases or acquire military facilities on the territory of Islamic States.” It declared,
[The OIC] hereby gives fair warning to all [big powers] to abstain from attempting to set up foreign military bases whether naval, air or land-based in the territories of Islamic states, and [from] providing any kind of facilities to the armed forces of any of these [Islamic] countries under any form, pretext, cover and for any reason whatsoever.
The same resolution also expressed
[i]ts deep concern over the consequences over … granting of military facilities to the United States of America which encouraged the latter to give the full vent to her belligerent and aggressive inclinations in the Muslim region, as fully reflected by her attempts to establish military bases and acquire military facilities inside certain Islamic countries and using such bases and facilities as a springboard to imperil the sovereignty and independence of the Islamic states, while imposing what she terms a framework for cooperation in the field of security in the area.7
It appears that the OIC countries have become worried not only about the Camp David Agreement, which caused division within its own fold, but also about the possible use of the Egyptian territory in action against other Muslim countries. We shall return to OIC’s concern about the use of Muslim territories by major powers for military purposes later in this essay. We shall first discuss OIC’s handling of the Accord.
In another resolution adopted immediately after the signing of the Accord the OIC decided to “suspend the membership of the Arab Republic of Egypt to the Organization of the Islamic Conference and all it agencies and bodies up to the time when the reasons that provoked this suspension are eliminated.”8 The preamble of the resolution listed a number of reasons for the suspension. Egypt had violated the Charter of the OIC as well as that of the United Nations. The resolution also mentioned that Egypt had violated all OIC resolutions regarding Jerusalem and Palestine. It pointed out that these resolutions prohibited OIC member countries from negotiating with Israel independently, especially since Israel had violated what it called civilized norms, seizing Arab and Muslim territory and destroying the Muslim shrines located in Jerusalem. The resolution considered the visit of the Egyptian president Anwar al-Sadat to occupied Jerusalem a violation of Egypt’s commitment to other Muslims. The OIC also urged all member states to sever all diplomatic and economic relations with Egypt.
In the beginning almost all member states of the OIC abided by these sanctions. Within a few years, however, fundamental changes occurred in the position of the OIC. In January 1984, at the Fourth Summit Conference in Casablanca, the OIC expressed its desire to “continue to oppose the Camp David approach” for the solution of the Middle East Crisis. Nonetheless, in its resolution on the subject, the OIC did not condemn Egypt for signing the agreement with Israel, as it did previously.9 In another resolution adopted in the same conference the OIC decided to lift the suspension of Egypt’s membership in the organization.10 At the conference the Guinean president is reported to have argued that, “the Conference did not prove that Egypt’s membership was suspended during the Taif Summit [of 1981].”11 The President was referring to the Third Islamic Summit Conference; it is interesting to note that he failed to notice the decision by the Tenth Foreign Ministers’ Conference on the issue, which has been mentioned earlier. The Moroccan King Hassan’s argument on the issue is also noteworthy. He is reported to have said that Egyptian President (Mubarak) had recently informed that, “the agreement concluded by President Sadat (d.1981) was virtually dead.”12 At the same time President Mubarak claimed that his country had always been committed to the Charter of the OIC, and therefore, Egypt should not be blamed for events leading to its suspension from and readmission to the OIC.13 Although there seems to be a discrepancy between the reports, no member state noticed this, or perhaps, they did not take the matter seriously.
In this series of events it was never clear who interpreted the Charter of the OIC. When Egypt was suspended, the majority of OIC members declared that it had deviated from the Charter by signing an agreement with Israel. When Egypt was readmitted, nothing was mentioned about the Egyptian deviation from the OIC Charter. Egypt, for its part, has maintained that it never deviated from the OIC Charter, neither before the signing the agreement with Israel nor after. However, an examination of these resolutions clearly suggests that the OIC was interested in accommodating one of its most important member states, Egypt, back into its fold. The resolutions also clearly suggest that the OIC wanted to maintain its rhetoric against Israel and its supporters. Now the question is: why has the OIC maintained its rhetoric against Israel and its supporters? In response to this question we have earlier suggested that such rhetoric against Israel and the United States earn legitimacy for the ruling elite in Muslim countries.14 It was also suggested that such rhetoric without relevant acts and no achievements could lead to disastrous consequences for the society. After September 11, such disastrous situation appears to have drawn a lot nearer. However, an inquisitive student of history may raise the question – is there a relationship between OIC resolutions against Israel and the United States and the destruction of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon? We shall address this question now.
The Question of Israel
We have noted earlier that most OIC countries were pro-US at the time of its establishment in 1969. This is to suggest that, even though some Orientalists, whose views have been echoed by scholars such as Samuel Huntington, would like us to believe that there is a perpetual conflict between Islam and Western civilization, this was not the case in the relationship between the United States and the Muslim world even in the nineteen sixties.15 In fact, we would argue, later in this essay, that there are striking similarities between Islamic values and the values of the American constitution. However, the US paid no attention to OIC resolutions, and we have already noted how slowly the OIC turned to be anti-US within a decade of its existence. It noted the following four reasons for its hostile attitude toward the US:
- Its stand against the national rights of the Palestinian people;
- Its continuous military, political, and economic support for Israel;
- Its use of veto power in the UN Security Council pertaining to the question of Jerusalem, Palestine, and the Middle East; and
- Its diplomatic and propaganda campaign against P.L.O. particularly in Western Europe with the intention of eliminating the political presence of the Palestinian people.16
One may raise the question here: when and why did the OIC countries turn against the American support for Israel? Are the Muslims perpetually against the Jews? These questions demand some references from history.
Historically there has been no enmity between Jews and Muslims in Palestine. In fact when persecuted in Europe the Jews enjoyed comfort and flourished in the Muslim world during the early centuries of Islamic civilization. The Jews suffered with Muslims when the Crusaders captured Jerusalem in 1099; and they were able to return to Jerusalem together with Muslims in 1187 when Salahuddin Ayyubi liberated the city from the Crusaders. About 5,000 Jews lived in Palestine during the Napoleonic invasion in the area at the end of the eighteenth century. The number increased to an estimated 80,000 just before World War I because of the growth of nationalist fervor in Europe at the end of the nineteenth century, which led many European Jews to migrate elsewhere. However, most of those who migrated to Palestine were old folks who wanted to die in the Holy Land. During the War the number of Jews declined to about 55,000. The late nineteenth century European nationalist fervor made an impact on some Jewish leaders as well. They began to conceive of a state for Jews in the modern world; and many of them wanted this state to be located in modern Palestine claiming its legitimacy on the basis of some biblical stories. Although most religious oriented Jews opposed this idea,17 the nationalist Jews established Zionist organizations and institutions to promote the idea that the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine was a humanitarian cause. Since they were oppressed in Europe the demand for a state of their own was a humanitarian cause, they argued. The nationalists also established contact with the British War Office to promote their cause. Meanwhile the British had occupied Palestine from the Ottomans with the help of some local Arab tribes. Soon the Zionists received support from the British government, and with the help of the British the Zionists began to import European Jews to Palestine. As soon as the indigenous Palestinians realized this Zionist design, and found out that some of the leading British officials in fact belonged to the Jewish faith, they began to oppose migration of Jews from other parts of the world to Palestine. The British authorities, which by then had received the League of Nation’s Mandate to administer the land of Palestine, now were caught in the middle. Although the British attempted to restrict Jewish migration to Palestine, the indigenous population continued to view the British Mandate Authorities as a party in the conflict that favored the Zionist aspiration, for some Zionist leaders in Britain were able to achieve many of their objectives through personal contacts with British leaders. However, this was not within the design of the League of Nations.
President Woodrow Wilson of the United States, who originally proposed the establishment of the League of Nations, and took the initiative to end American isolationism, participated in a conference in Paris to establish world peace. On this initiative of the President Huntington writes,
In 1919 Woodrow Wilson, Lloyd George [British Prime Minister], and Georges Clemenceau [French Prime Minister] together virtually controlled the world. Sitting in Paris, they determined what countries would exist and which would not, what new countries would be created, what their boundaries would be and who would rule them, and how the Middle East and other parts of the world would be divided up among the victorious powers.18
But Huntington does not realize that the President was very careful in expressing his opinion on how to “create” the “new countries.” Earlier the President had sent a delegation (known as King-Crane Commission) to the Middle East in order to enquire about the desire of the local population on the issue. Based on the declared American values of the freedom and self-determination, the King-Crane Commission recommended against the idea of establishing any Jewish state in the area.19 However, the British Authorities continued to allow increasingly more Jews to migrate to the area. By 1930 the number of Jews in Palestine increased to about 156,000. Yet the Zionist extremists were not satisfied with the authorities for putting restrictions on migration. With the rise of nationalist sentiments in Germany, more Jews were thrown out of the country and the pressure on the Mandate authorities increased to allow them in Palestine. Zionist activists introduced terrorism in the region in order to press for their demands; and by 1935 the number of Jews doubled in Palestine. Among the Zionist terrorists was Menachem Begin, on whose head the Mandate authorities offered 100,000 British pounds, and who later became a democratically elected prime minister of Israel. It should be pointed out here that the indigenous peaceful protest against Jewish migration to Palestine was brutally suppressed by the British Mandate administration. With the passage of time the administration became more pro-Zionist. It allowed the Zionists to establish a regular army battalion for the support of the Allied forces during WW II. As the pressure increased on the Jews in Germany during and immediately after the war, demands were made to allow more Jews in Palestine. American President Truman also joined to this demand on, what he called, the humanitarian grounds.20
In 1948 under chaotic circumstances the Mandate authorities withdrew from Palestine, and the Zionists – mostly immigrants since 1918 – declared the establishment of the State of Israel. Within 11 minutes of its declaration, the United States recognized it although the Secretary of State George Marshall (founder of the famous Marshall Plan for the reconstruction of Europe) vehemently opposed the idea. Between 1918 and 1948 a significant demographic change had been engineered in Palestine. In 1918 the number of Jews in Palestine was 55,000 while in 1948 the number increased to about 646,000. In terms of ratio with the local population they increased from 8.4% to 31.7%, and in terms of land possession, the Jews increased their portion from 2% to 6.5% during the same period.21 Now that it had the military and political might, Israel started a aggressive campaign against the local population to create more rooms for existing and new immigrants. Israeli army simply attacked unarmed Palestinian villagers and forced about 800,000 Palestinians out to Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and other neighboring Arab countries. Thus with the establishment of the state of Israel the Palestinian crisis, which began during WW I, became very critical for international peace and security. Neighboring Arab countries declared war against Israel in support of the Palestinian people – a number of them newly independent, and still commanded by British officers – did not do well in the war. OIC resolutions on Israel reflect this weakness and inability of Muslim countries to contain the Zionist expansionist design in the area. The resolutions also clearly suggest that OIC’s weakness and inability were due to the total US support for Israel.
However, as we have indicated earlier, although President Truman’s action helped the establishment of Israel diplomatically, the OIC countries were not against the United States in the beginning. This was because of the general American anti-colonialist stand in the United Nations and its stand in the 1956 Suez war. The United States literally rebuked Israel, Britain and France for creating the Suez crisis. However, the Soviet Union staged a diplomatic coup in the Middle Eastern affairs, and drafted Egypt to its fold. This provided Israel with the opportunity to appear as a US ally in the area, and to campaign for more American assistance; and it received the American assistance substantially. Although it fought against Arab countries mostly with non-American weapons till 1967, after the war American financial and military aid to Israel increased tremendously, and this gradually produced a negative impact on the Muslim world. Then came the 1973 war, and Israel survived only because of massive American assistance. In retaliation Arab countries, under the leadership of Saudi Arabia, imposed an oil embargo on countries that supported Israel in the war. This had a devastating impact on the US economy, and totally backfired to Muslim interests. The United States now could find excuse to justify its unjust policy in the Middle East.
On its part the United States took initiatives to improve its relations with Muslim countries, and to secure Israel’s position in the area: it moved to deal with OIC countries independently. It acted as a catalyst in getting Egypt, an OIC member country, to recognize and sign a treaty with Israel: the OIC condemned the United States for this act. One of course can’t blame the United States for initiating such an action involving sovereign nation states. In principle the OIC should have blamed Egypt before anybody else; but it avoided doing that, perhaps for the sake of keeping its ranks together. Under the existing the international system, where the nation-states enjoy absolute sovereignty, international organizations such as the OIC do not enjoy much credibility. In fact, even the United Nations sometimes suffers from disrespect on the part of its member states. But in the present context the question is – what is the significance of adopting resolutions on the platform of the OIC when member states do not follow them? As mentioned earlier, such commitments bring legitimacy in the eyes of the common people. However, the matter of concern now is the possible consequences of their failure to implement these resolutions. Will the common people be passive to their failure?
The failure of the OIC countries to carry out their resolutions has already brought disastrous consequences to a number of countries. President Anwar Sadaat of Egypt has already paid with his life. Other governments also have been under threat from Islamic oriented and human rights groups. On the growth and responses of some Muslim governments to such demands Samuel Huntington observed:
The strength of the Resurgence and the appeal of the Islamist movements induced governments to promote Islamic institutions and practices and to incorporate Islamic symbols and practices into their regime. At the broadest level this meant affirming or reaffirming the Islamic character of their state and society. In the 1970s and 1980s political leaders rushed to identify their regimes and themselves with Islam. King Hussein of Jordan, convinced that secular governments had little future in the Arab world, spoke of the need to create “Islamic democracy” and a “modernizing Islam.” King Hassan of Morocco emphasized his descent from the Prophet and his role as “Commander of the faithful.” The Sultan of Brunei, not previously noted for Islamic practices, became “increasingly devout” and defined his regime as a “Malay Muslim monarchy.” Ben Ali of Tunisia began regularly to invoke Allah in his speeches and “wrapped himself in the mantle of Islam” to check the growing appeal of Islamic groups. In the early 1990s Suharto explicitly adopted a policy of becoming “more Muslim.” In Bangladesh the principle of “secularism” was dropped from the constitution in the mid-1970s, and by early 1990s the secular, Kemalist identity of Turkey was, for the first time, coming under serious challenge. To underline their Islamic commitment, governmental leaders – Ozal, Suharto, Karimov – hastened to their hajh.22
However, such responses of Muslim leaders to the demands of Islamic activism are not new,23 but what is interesting is that Huntington does not foresee any danger in these superficial responses on the part of the Muslim leaders. We shall now discuss the possible consequences of ignoring OIC resolutions on Israel and the United States.
The United States did not stop its diplomatic efforts in the Middle East by getting Egypt to recognize the state of Israel, it wanted to end Israel’s isolation by all its neighboring states. However, that would be difficult without having lured the Palestinian leadership to the same fold. Meanwhile two significant developments occurred: one, in 1987 a new wave of Palestinian uprising began; and two, in 1988 the Palestinian National Council adopted a new strategy by accepting UN resolutions on the issue, which recommended a division of Palestine among the immigrant Jews and local Palestinians. In 1993 the Clinton administration succeeded in bringing the Palestinian leadership to sign an agreement (known as the Oslo Accord) with Israel. Under the agreement the Palestinians were to be granted self-rule in Gaza strip and Jericho, which would include other Palestinian areas later. It was also agreed that the final status of Jerusalem and “other sensitive issues” including the right of the Palestinians to return to their original homes, would be settled within two years.
As a result of the Palestinian Israeli Agreement Israel benefited tremendously. The agreement was immediately followed by similar agreements between Israel and Jordan. A number of other OIC countries recognized and established diplomatic and commercial relations with Israel as a result of which Israel saw an exceptional and accelerated growth in its economy. This was a major success both for Israel and the US: after seventy years of Jewish immigration against the will of the local population, at least some Palestinians, and some other Muslims were now willing to share their land, and interact with the Jewish state. Meanwhile, by the end of the year 2000 the number of Jews in Israel increased to more than 4,947,000, while the number of Palestinians in the Diaspora also reached to about 4,900,000. As for the Palestinians, even six or seven years after signing the treaty with Israel the situation on ground for them changed very little. The Palestinians were allowed to establish a political institution called Palestinian Authority, but were denied the status of statehood. The Palestinian Authority received administrative responsibilities in parts of the territories that claimed to be their own, but Israel maintained the power to enter into those areas at its will. In the name of its security Israel conducted operations in the so-called self-rule territories, and the Palestinian Authority accused Israel of being involved in extra-judicial assassinations. On its part Israel accused the Palestinians for starting the violence, and claimed that whatever they did was in response. Whenever the Palestinians demanded the presence of international observers to monitor these acts of violence, Israel opposed such moves. In this Israel received unreserved US support, which encouraged Israel to continue violence. And this angered many people in the Muslim countries. Many Palestinians turned to be suicide activists, and some radical organizations claimed to sponsor such activities. Now the question is: what is the relationship between such Muslim anger and September 11 violence in the United States. It is not within the scope of this paper to deal with the question of who is responsible for the action. We shall however attempt to understand how the act has been perceived in the United States and in the Muslim world.
Post September 11 Situation in the Muslim World
The United States has officially accused Osama bin Ladin, a Saudi born of Yemeni descent, who had earlier worked for the American CIA in Afghanistan, for the September 11 action. It has also taken military action against Afghanistan’s Taliban government for its failure to arrest and hand over Bin Ladin, who had taken refuge in Afghanistan. However, immediately after the action, on September 12 the Secretary General of the OIC in a press statement condemned the “bloody attack,” in the United States said, “the hand of severe justice should apprehend the perpetrators as soon as they have been identified with certainty.”24 About a month later the OIC convened an extraordinary meeting of its foreign ministers and resolved that,
(it) condemned the brutal terror acts that befell the United States, … these terror acts ran counter to the teachings of the divine religions as well as ethical and human values, stressed the necessity of tracking down the perpetrators of these acts in the light of the results investigations and bringing them to justice to inflict on them the penalty they deserve, and underscored its support.25
The resolution also called for an international conference under the auspicious of the UN to define terrorism and rejected any linkage between terrorism and the rights of the Palestinian people. Although some OIC governments have sided with the US government in its military action in Afghanistan, the OIC resolution clearly indicates reservations on the approach adopted by the US government to fight terrorism. This is because the general public opinion in Muslim countries does not subscribe to the view of the US government on the issue. In a televised address on October 7 Osama denied his personal involvement in the action, but expressed his support for it. Explaining his statement he narrated a story of two slaughtered camels. “When the first camel was brought for being slaughtered in the presence of the second camel,” he said, “the second camel suddenly became violent, and attacked and injured the people who were engaged in slaughtering the first camel.” Then he asked, “how could the Muslims of other parts of the world just sit and watch acts of Israelis killing innocent people in Palestine in a worse manner than camels?” Any observer with some idea about the Muslim culture, would clearly understand the strength of this argument. However, this does not mean that all Muslims would support the September terrorist act in the US. What this means is that there is a difference in the perception of the act in the Muslim world and in the United States. Many Muslims see similarities between the innocent human beings victimized in the US and in Palestine. This issue needs further discussion.
Muslim anger against the persistent injustice of the United States is not confined to the Palestinian issue alone; we have already mentioned about OIC resolutions on the presence of foreign military forces in Muslim countries. This is another very sensitive issue in the relationship between Muslim countries and the United States. But it is interesting to note that the OIC has not been pursuing this issue so actively as, at least on paper, the Palestinian issue. It is also noteworthy, in this context, that since the adoption of the resolution on the deployment if foreign forces in Muslim countries in 1980 powerful OIC countries such as Saudi Arabia and some other gulf countries have allowed the US troops in their lands, and yet the OIC has not adopted a new resolution on the issue. Does this mean that the OIC has changed its position on the issue? Or this is a diplomatic victory of the US policy in the region. No. Neither has the OIC changed its stand on the issue, nor is this a victory for the US foreign policy. This would rather be perceived as a weakness of the current regimes in the area. For example, any one who knows about Saudi policy under the earlier kings such as Abdul Aziz ibn Saud (1902-1953) and Faisal ibn Abdul Aziz (1962-1975) would know that this is not consistent with traditional Saudi foreign policy.26 Therefore, this will be perceived by an ordinary Muslim as a weakness of the current Saudi ruler, rather than a victory of the US foreign policy. And Osama bin Ladin seems to be well aware of this. That is why it may be suggested that most ordinary Muslims might not agree with his methodology, but would definitely agree with many of his demands.
This brings us to the question of the nature of governments in OIC countries. Among the OIC member states there are monarchies, Islamic republics, democratic republics, socialist republics, and one may find all kinds of rhetoric such as peoples democratic republics, or peoples socialist republics, democratic, socialist peoples republic etc. But do the leaders in these countries really represent the public opinion in their countries? This question has often been raised time and again by the American administration and by the US dominated international press. Unfortunately one does not find a consistent principle on the part of the United States in its policy toward these states. In fact, often one finds the United States supporting regimes in Muslim countries that are involved in suppressing popular public opinion. Pre-revolutionary Iran is a case in reference. This should partially be answer to Mr. Bush’s question – “why do they hate us?” In this context one should also note that many Muslims strongly disapprove the US position on the issues of globalization and environment. There is a strong resentment against IMF/ World Bank measures taken on many Muslim countries in the name of economic reforms. These measures are generally seen as US guided measures taken in the name of world institutions. Pakistan, for example, now spends 55 percent of its national income in paying debts. How did this loan accumulate? Before 1980 the loan amounted to little over $ 4 billion. By the end of Ziaul Haq era the amount rose to about $ 9 billion. That was because international funds would be granted only if the government had also accepted loans. Ziaul Haq era was followed by a so-called democratic rule of over a decade. During this period national elections took place four times and the loans became the main source of “income” for the democratically elected governments. Now the country’s loan stands at almost $ 32 billion.
An elaborate discussion on the situation in Muslim countries is not within the scope of this short paper. However, some references to the current situation in most Muslim countries and the historical relationship between these countries and Western civilization will be relevant to our present context. In response to Europe’s aggressive campaign for colonies in Africa and Asia, Muslims fought jihad, but failed to contain European penetration into the Muslim world. According to Huntington, “they (Muslim leaders) invoked Western values of self-determination, liberalism, democracy, and independence to justify their opposition to Western domination.”27 However, Huntington missed in his observation the Muslim definition of the self: During the nationalist struggle most Muslims defined their national identity on the basis of their religion. Algerians wanted to be Muslim Algerian by rejecting their French Algerian identity; British Indian Muslims wanted to be Indian Muslim or Pakistani. W. C. Smith has observed this phenomenon as: “Nationalism, for Muslims, is everywhere a Muslim nationalism.”28 Nevertheless following their independence they were confronted with conflicting interests of their new national identity and religious identity creating a crisis in contemporary Muslim society.29 We shall return to the question of Islamic and Western values later in this essay, now we would like to take a few observations by Huntington on the current situation in the Muslim world into consideration. He says,
Beginning in the 1970s, Islamic symbols, beliefs, practices, institutions, policies, and organizations won increasing commitment and support throughout the world of 1 billion Muslims stretching from Morocco to Indonesia and from Nigeria to Kazakhstan. … In 1995 every country with a predominantly Muslim population, … was more Islamic and Islamist culturally, socially, and politically than it was fifteen years earlier.30
He further observes,
In Egypt by the early 1990s Islamic organizations had developed an extensive network of organizations which, filling a vacuum left by the government, provided health, welfare, educational, and other services to a large number of Egypt’s poor. After the 1992 earthquake in Cairo, these organizations “were on the streets within hours, handing out food and blankets while the Government’s relief efforts lagged.” … Islamist activists “probably include a disproportionately large number of the best-educated and most intelligent young people in their respective populations,” including doctors, lawyers, engineers, scientists, teachers, civil servants.31
Although Huntington also believes that these “Islamists are overwhelmingly participants in and products of the processes of modernization,” and they are “mobile and modern-oriented younger people,” yet, indeed, “it is hard to find statements by any Muslims, whether politician, officials, academics, businesspersons, journalists, praising Western values, and institutions.”32 This is simply not true; any observer of contemporary Muslim society will find hundreds, if not thousands, of individuals, organizations, and institutions praising values of Western civilization such as freedom, human rights, and human dignity. In fact, all OIC resolutions related to Palestine reflect this, and they have appealed to Israel and the United States to follow the UN resolutions on the issue, which are based on those values. However, this observation of Huntington raises serious questions about his methodology. Let us now briefly consider his methodology.
Huntington’s work provides a lot of statistical information, but they are very selective. He usually picks up the information that suits his pre-conceived notion. Edward Said in a post-September 11 article has pointed out that, “the carefully planned and horrendous, pathologically motivated suicide attack and mass slaughter by a small group of deranged militants has been turned into proof of Huntington’s thesis.”33 In his work Huntington provides a long list of conflicts involving Muslims both within the Islamic civilization and outside, but he does not discuss about people belonging to other civilizations with similar information. Have there been no conflict involving people other than the Muslims in the contemporary world?34 Or Huntington deliberately wanted to avoid those? The latter seems to be more logical answer. In a recently published article “The Age of Muslim Wars,” in the Newsweek magazine he has despicably suggested that, “throughout the Muslim world, … there exists a great sense of grievance, resentment, envy and hostility toward the West and its wealth, power and culture.”35 He provides information about what he calls Muslim terrorism in the article, but fails to substantiate his statement about Muslim envy about the wealth of what he considers the West. If by the West Huntington means European colonialism, then of course, one will find plenty of literature both in Muslim and non-Muslim African and Asian countries expressing strong resentment against colonial exploitation and repression. The OIC also adopted resolutions on the subject demanding reparations for damages caused by colonialism.36 Huntington’s understanding of history is faulty: he argues for some issues, but concludes on other issues.
Huntington’s article in the Newsweek brings to the question of the media in the relationship between the Muslim world and the United States. The media appears to have vested interests. This problem has been already been identified by Edward Said more than twenty years ago,37 but nothing has changed since then. It still promotes an anti-Muslim campaign, and deliberately hides information. For example, one finds little information about atrocities committed against Muslims in various parts of the world.38 Unfortunately this is also true for many research institutions: most of the times they would promote research activities and propagate what they already believe.39 Another author, Olivier Roy, after analyzing what Huntington calls “Islamic Resurgence”, and Roy calls “neofundamentalism or political Islam”, says, “[the phenomenon] is founded on stated rejection of all Western values.”40 Interestingly he also observes that, “neofundamentalist society does not represent hatred of the other, but rather hatred of oneself and of one’s desires.”41 Roy summarizes the threat to Muslim society as:
The culture that threatens Muslim society is neither Jewish nor Christian; it is world culture of consumption and communication, a culture that is secular, atheist, and ultimately empty; it has no values or strategies, but it is already here, in the cassette and the transistor, present in the most remote village.42
In our estimate both Huntington and Roy are wrong in their perception of contemporary Muslim society.
Let us first consider the phenomenon of what Huntington calls ‘Islamic Resurgence’, and Roy calls ‘political Islam’. We have already noted what Huntington considered as the response of government leaders to this phenomenon. The very title of Roy’s book on the subject suggests that the author believes that the phenomenon has little to do with current political situation in the Muslim world. If Roy’s views were true, and it is held that the so-called political Islam has failed, then one would have expected less Islamic activism in the world today. A fair treatment of this phenomenon demands elaborate and separate discussion of the subject in all OIC member states separately. Very briefly, however, one may suggest that, although the attempts of establishing what many Islamic activists conceived as an ideal Islamic state43 might have failed, it will be a major mistake to consider the whole phenomenon a failure. It is quite well known that activities of Islamic revivalism in recent years have been suppressed heavy handedly44 by the regimes in Muslim countries. “If I were to do what you ask, the fundamentalists will take over Egypt. Is that what you want?” An angry President Mubarak is reported to have said. Similarly Yaser Arafat of Palestine is reported to have said, “If I do what you want, Hamas will be in power tomorrow.”45 The US administration seems to have accepted the advice of these individuals, and has decided to continue supporting them in spite of human right abuses committed by their regimes. In some Muslim countries some Islamic oriented political parties have performed well in the elections, and yet they have been denied the right to form or to stay in the government in recent years. Algeria and Turkey are prime examples of this phenomenon.
One interesting aspect of this phenomenon is that in Algeria the elected representatives were suppressed more violently than in Turkey. When their rights were suppressed and justice was denied to them, it seems, many Algerians resorted to be suicide activists. One does not find the same in Turkey. Similarly one finds among suicide activists many Palestinians, Egyptians, and Indian Kashmiris.46 This is to suggest that there is a direct relationship between violent suppression of public opinion and suicidal attacks by the so-called Islamic militants. Now the question is why have they turned to suicide activities? The answer is simple: Muslim regimes, as well as the peaceful Islamic movements have failed to achieve the goal, i.e., to ensure peace and justice in Muslim countries. However, it will be wrong to blame only the repressive regimes for the failure of peaceful Islamic movements in Muslim countries. In Pakistan, for example, the Jamaat-I-Islami has not performed well either in the democratic process or in the so-called islamization process under President Ziaul Haq in the 1980s. The failure of the Islamic movement in the Sudan is even more striking: It acquired political power through undemocratic means, but fought within its own ranks creating a negative image of the movement, thus frustrated many among the younger generation.
This is to suggest that Osama has not only challenged the US administration, it has also raised questions about the legitimacy of many Muslim governments and also Islamic movements that stood for the establishment of an Islamic state in the modern world. Most Muslim countries have not only failed to create an ideal Islamic state or administration like the one that existed under the Prophet in Madinah or even a welfare state envisioned by nationalist leaders during the nationalist struggle against European colonizers. The most disturbing question, of course, is the question of Israel. Muslim governments have failed to ensure fundamental rights of the people of Palestine. Their efforts to isolate Israel politically, diplomatically, and commercially have failed in spite of numerous resolutions adopted by the OIC. The Muslim governments also have failed to ensure that foreign troops are not stationed in their lands. As for Islamic resurgent movements, they also have failed to be a viable alternative to the reigning regimes in the Muslim world. Osama has been able to highlight the present crisis of the Muslim society very effectively. He has raised some of the pressing problems of the Muslim world. This makes Osama a popular figure particularly among the youth.47 The Muslim world now stands on the brink of a very critical situation: Even a small mistake may bring disaster not only to the Muslim world (containing at least one fifth of the mankind), but also to the whole world. What is the alternative then? We would like to conclude this essay with some remarks on the alternative to this situation.
Conclusion
Civilizations always need to revive the original values that laid their foundation in order to be rescued from decline and fall. Will the original values of Islamic civilization resolve the present crisis of the Muslim ummah? Will this revival be a catalyst in developing friendly relations between the United States and the Muslim world? What will be consequences of such revival to our contemporary world civilization? In this section we would like to concentrate on these questions. We have quoted Huntington earlier saying that Muslims had
“[i]nvoked Western values of self-determination, liberalism, democracy, and independence to justify their opposition to Western domination. Now that they are no longer weak but increasingly powerful, they do not hesitate to attack those same values which they previously used to promote their interests. The revolt against the West was originally legitimated by asserting the universality of Western values; it is now legitimated by asserting the superiority of non-Western values.”48
We shall argue now that contemporary Muslim thought did not intend to exploit universal values of Western civilization, rather they sincerely believed in those values. They have argued that those values were in conformity with Islamic values and many Muslim scholars still subscribe to those values. And the solution to the problems of our contemporary world civilization lay in the revival of those common values.
Let us first take the question of democracy. Pioneers of Islamic resurgence movements accepted the European idea of democracy, but rejected the idea that sovereignty belonged to the people. For them God was the only sovereign authority. However, this strict definition of the concept of sovereignty was confusing for many European educated Muslims. Both concepts were later redefined in order to accommodate the concept of European democracy in Islam. One contemporary Muslim scholar, Sa’id Hawwa of Syria, for example, initially defined democracy as “a Greek term which signifies sovereignty of the people,” while in Islam “people do not govern themselves by laws they make on their own.” In a few years time he revised his opinion, and said:
We see that democracy in the Muslim world will eventually produce victory for Islam. Thus we warn ourselves and our brothers against fighting practical democracy. In fact, we see that asking for more democracy is the practical way to the success of Islam on Islam’s territory. Our enemies have realised this fact, and that is why they have assassinated democracy and established dictatorships and other alternatives. Many of the followers of Islam have been unable to see the positive things democracy provides to us; they only looked at the issue from a purely theoretical and ideological perspective, and failed to look at it from the perspective of reality, namely that the majority rules, that the values of such a majority dominate and that in whichever country a Muslim majority exists Islam will prevail. Even the Muslims are in a minority, democracy is mostly in their interests.49
However, this acceptance of the practice of democracy does not mean that the idea of democracy must be accepted as a universal value: One must be aware of the weaknesses of the idea. Let us recall the view on the subject of the Greek philosopher Socrates (c.469-399 B.C.), who believed that reason was the only proper guide to the most critical problem of human existence. That is why he condemned the learning of politics, which was devoid of morality and justice. Socrates was accused of being anti-democratic by corrupt politicians who were able to gather popular vote and were elected to office, but in the process ruined the civilization. Similarly even before the democratic rise of Hitler in Germany the Spanish author Jose Ortega y Gasset wrote:
Europe has been left without a moral code. … at the centre of his [mass-man] scheme of life there is precisely the aspiration to live without conforming to any moral code. … When people talk of the “new morality” they are merely committing a new immorality and looking for a way of introducing contraband goods. … Immoralism has become a commonplace, and anybody and everybody boasts of practising it.50
Anybody familiar with American democracy today knows well that the campaigners and propagandists always refer to Israeli “democracy” as reason for the US to maintain a pro-Israeli stand in its foreign policy. But one must also know that Israel is the only democracy in the world that has elected branded terrorists as its prime ministers, not once but three times.
Huntington also refers to liberalism as a value. Can Huntington define liberalism that will be universally acceptable irrespective of time and space? He should be aware of the fact that Edmund Burke’s Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790), which became instrumental in shaping conservative thought immediately after the French Revolution, also became “the Bible of nineteenth-century English liberals.”51 Huntington should also know that socialism as an ideology emerged in the beginning of the nineteenth century as an extension of liberalism, but became a challenge to liberalism itself in the twentieth century. The real values of the Enlightenment tradition that became the foundation of the French Revolution and the American constitution are rationalism, equality, justice, freedom of conscience, human rights, and human dignity. These values can be universally applied in all times and spaces. And many Muslim scholars in the nineteenth century identified these values with many Qur’anic ideas, and most Muslims would subscribe to these values even now. But one gets disappointed with the policy of the Bush administration: On the one hand President Bush claims that he stands for justice and the continuity of human civilization, on the other hand he also has not hesitated in using indiscriminate military might against the civilian population in Afghanistan. The United States administration is also asking Saudi Arabia to review its school curriculum, and Pakistan to stop what India calls cross-border terrorism, even though most of the Kashmiri activities are the by-products of India’s oppression and state terrorism on indigenous Kashmiries. It is also asking the moribund Palestinian Authority to control Palestinian militant activities, while supporting Israel in its so-called pre-emptive strikes inside Palestinian territories. Most important of all it has curtailed press freedom by issuing instruction to the media for not to relaying directly from foreign news media such as al-Jazirah, and violated the First Amendment of its own constitution. This reminds us with the view of the British historian Arnold Toynbee about the Americans. According to one historian Toynbee “saw the United States as the more serious threat to world peace.” He says, “Toynbee’s favorite term for Americans before the war has been ‘barbarians.’ In 1945 he had already predicted to his father-in-law Gilbert Murray that if a new war broke out, the Americans would be the aggressor.”52
Should the present administration in the US allow Toynbee’s prediction to come true? Does the administration want to see an end to its leading role in world civilization in this way? Or does it want to subjugate the Muslim world? Well, a total subjugation of one-fifth or perhaps one fourth of the mankind will be impossible. For the Qur’anic ideas against injustice are universal and very strong: and nobody would be able to disassociate them from the Qur’anic teachings. Also Muslims fight against injustice not only because it is prescribed in the Qur’an, they also believe that when they fight for justice they also fight in the way of the Biblical prophets Abraham, Moses and David. The nature of Muslim struggle for justice has been clearly established during the European occupation of Muslim lands. And the continuation of an aggressive policy by the US administration will only add to the isolation of the US in the Muslim world, and increase the Muslim anger and frustration, which will result to more terrorist acts. It will be wrong to believe that the war in Afghanistan is over; the current situation has a strong potential to breed a Vietnam like situation. The Huntingtonian wish that – by the year 2020 the number of Muslim teenaged population will shrink53 and thus the present conflict between the US and the Muslim world will be resolved by then – is not rational. The best method to resolve the present conflict is for everybody to resort to rationalism and to other values of the noble Enlightenment tradition, which has been reshaped by great statesman such as Edmund Burke. First of all the administration should subscribe to transparency. All its policies and operations should be made public in order to gain public confidence. A free and unbiased media will be necessary for peace and any positive growth of civilization, if that is what the US administration is interested in. Muslims also will need to respond to these initiatives rationally. In fact, in a post-September 11 interview with the Time magazine the former president of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina has already expressed his appreciation for the US role in the Balkans.54 The United Nations Declarations of Human Rights of 1948 is a good document to foster cooperation between the two groups. This may provide the best ground for cooperation for the safely and growth of world civilization. The United States should ask both Israel and India to implement the UN resolutions on the respective conflicts and trust international observers to monitor the conflicts. If both sides act rationally, a lasting friendship between the two entities could be established on stronger foundations, which will definitely ensure world peace.
Abdullah al-Ahsan
Professor
Department of History and Civilization
International Islamic University Malaysia.
1 The term ‘Muslim World’ was viewed as a religious expression rather than a political entity by most academicians in the nineteen fifties and sixties. For example W. C. Smith considers “[t]he unity of the Muslim world is a unity of sentiment.” See, Islam in Modern History, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1957), 88-89.
2 For history, organization and activities of the OIC see, Abdullah al-Ahsan, OIC: An Introduction to an Islamic Political Institution. (Herndon, VA; IIIT, 1988), 18-21.
3 See, www.oic-un.org/ about.over.html.
4 OIC principles, policy and activities on the issue of Palestine can be found in the resolutions 1/1; 2/1; 4/3; 2/2-(IS); 14/5-P; 14/5-P; 1/6-P; 9/7-P; 13/9-P; 3,4,5,9/ 10-P; 4,5,6,7,8,9,12/ 11-P; etc.
5 Resolution 8/10-P.
6 Resolutions 1/ 11-P; 2/ 11-P; 1/ 13-P etc.
7 Resolution 17/11-P.
8 Resolution 18/10-P.
9 Resolution 1/4 -P(IS).
10 Resolution 1/4 –ORG (IS).
11 See “OIC Summit: Egypt’s Casablanca Come Back,” Arabia (March 1984), 15.
12 Ibid.
13 Ibid.
14 See Abdullah al-Ahsan, Ummah or Nation?: Identity Crisis in Contemporary Muslim Society. (Leicester; The Islamic Foundation, 1992), 113-118.
15 It should be noted here that a Muslim country, Morocco where the OIC was born, was among the first countries to recognize the independence of America in 1776 immediately after its declaration.
16 See Resolution 1/16-P.
17 Jacob H. Schiff, a member of the American Jewish Committee during the War is reported to have said, “I believe that I am not far wrong if I say that from fifty to seventy per cent of the so-called Jewish Nationalists are either atheists or agnostics and that the great majority of the Jewish Nationalist leaders have absolutely no interest in the Jewish religion.” Quoted in George Lenczowski, Middle East in World Affairs. (Ithaca, NY; Cornell University Press, 1962), 374-375.
18 Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1996), 91
19 For a report of King Crane Commission on the issue, see Ray Stannard Baker, Woodrow Wilson and World Settlement: Written from His Unpublished and Personal Material. (Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith, 1960), 213-216. King Crane report has also been published separately.
20 It is interesting to note that the Jews in general continued to argue that Zionism as an ideology was political, rather than religious. See, Irwin M. Herman, Zionism is Political, not Humanitarian. (New York; The American Council for Judaism, 1962).
21 These figures have been taken from, Mohsen M. Saleh, The Palestinian Issue: Its Background and Development up to 2000. (Kuala Lumpur; Fajar Ulang, 2001), 43.
22 Samuel P. Huntington, 115. It is interesting to note that Huntington writes Islamic resurgence (the phenomenon of Islamic awakening in the latter part of the twentieth century) with a capital r. He justifies this by saying, “it refers to an extremely important historical event affecting one-fifth or more of humanity, that is at least as significant as the American Revolution, French Revolution, or Russian Revolution, whose “r”s are usually capitalized, and that is similar to and comparable to the Protestant Reformation in Western society, whose “R” is almost invariably capitalized.” (109).
23 See, Abdullah al-Ahsan, Ummah or Nation, 77-79.
24 www.oic-un.org/pr/96.html.
25 www.oic-un.org/home/FQ.htm
26 For example, in 1948 when the US government recognized the state of Israel immediately after the announcement of its creation, King Abdul Aziz protested by denying a $50 million grant to Saudi Arabia by the US administration. One must note that this was a very significant amount for the Saudi government at that time.
27 Samuel P. Huntington, 93.
28 W. C. Smith, 85.
29 On this subject see, Abdullah al-Ahsan, Ummah or Nation, 109-140.
30 Huntington, 111.
31 Ibid, 112-113.
32 Ibid, 112 and 213.
33 Edward W. Said, “The Clash of Ignorance,” The Nation (USA) (October 22, 2001). Said seems to be convinced that a few Muslims were responsible for September 11 attack.
34 In Vietnam, Falklands, Peru-Ecuador, Ireland, Basque separatist movement in Spain, Tamil separatist movement in Sri Lanka, Nagaland, Bodoland, and many other separatist movement in various parts of India and in many other national and international conflicts there is no involvement of Muslims.
35 Samuel P. Huntington, Special Davos Edition Newsweek (December 2001-February 2002), 9.
36 Resolutions 28/20-P; 28/23-P.; etc.
37 Edward W. Said, Covering Islam: How the Media and the Experts Determine How We See the Rest of the World. (New York: Pantheon Books, 1981).
38 This subject demands an elaborate and separate treatment. However, one may notice the pictures of angry Muslim youth published along with the article of Huntington. One may also cite the CNN report on Bin Ladin’s television interview that omitted the story of slaughtering camels.
39 This author was once invited by the New York based Council on Foreign Relations to deliver a talk on “Muslim Transnationalism: Implications for the US.” The talk was well received, but when it was later published in their Muslim Politics Report (No. 8, 1996), most of its relevant recommendations were omitted.
40 Olivier Roy, The Failure of Political Islam. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1994), 202.
41 Ibid. 199.
42 Ibid. 203.
43 The term ‘Islamic state’ has become very controversial with the claims of Pakistan, Iran, Mauritania, and Comoros to be Islamic republic. Recently Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohammad also has claimed that Malaysia was an Islamic state.
44 Even humanitarian activities such as distribution of aids to victims of earthquakes and other natural disasters by Islamic oriented NGOs were banned in Egypt and Turkey.
45 This has been reported in Newsweek (December 24, 2001), 20. However, one may find similar information in many reports from the area.
46 The accusation of many Saudis being involved in the September 11 attack cannot be accepted for any serious academic research, mainly because; first of all, it has not been established that accused individuals bearing the Muslim names were real hijackers. Also news reports have suggested that persons bearing some of those names are still alive in Saudi Arabia, but their passports were stolen earlier, which were reported to legitimate authorities.
47 It should be noted here that Osama is a popular figure also among the younger people in non-Muslim countries such as South Korea, Mexico, and Argentina.
48 Huntington, The Clash, 93.
49 See Sa’id Hawwa being quoted in Azzam Tamimi, “Democracy in Islamic Political Thought,” in Encounter: Journal of Inter-Cultural Prespectives, (Vol. 3 No. 1 March 1997), 21-44: 35.
50 Jose Ortega y Gasset, The Revolt of the Masses. [Originally published in Spanish in 1930], (NY: Norton, 1960), 187.
51 Arthur Herman, The Idea of Decline in Western History, (NY: The Free Press, 1997), 39.
52 Ibid, 285.
53 Huntington, “The Age of Muslim Wars”, 13.
54 See, Time, Europe edition, Oct. 31, 2001.
