The year 2011 saw Libyan ‘revolutionaries’ call for democracy and human rights. However, the gruesome footage of the capture and subsequent death of Muammar Gaddafi indicates that the revolutionaries had a scant understanding of democracy, due process or human rights. Qadhaffi’s death was met with cries of “Allahu Akbar” (God is great) and the Islamic declaration of faith, “La ilaha illallah,” implying that this victorious moment was from God, binding the incident to the Islamic faith itself. While thanking God for their victory, the rebels seemed to forget that due process is part and parcel of the Islamic faith and that there is indeed room for amnesty as well as an obligation to justice and rule of law under Islamic law (Shariah).

The incident carries special significance, for it comes at a time during which the question of Islam and its place in politics is at a most crucial point. A common thread, which has run through many of the revolutions in the Arab world, is the rise of so-called ‘Islamist’ parties. In Egypt, the prospect of the Muslim Brotherhood gaining power has become a very sudden, very real possibility and is viewed with great trepidation. In Libya, senior National Transitional Council members have said that Shariah will be the new law of the land, and in Tunisia, doors that were long shut have now opened to Islamist parties after the fall of Zine El Abidine Ben Ali. In response, some have gone on to say that the Arab Spring is fast turning into an Islamist Autumn nightmare’.

This paper, the first of a two-part series, explores the perceptions that give rise to such foreboding as the notion of Islam as an inherently violent and radical faith. In doing so, actual Islamic principles are examined in light of such perceptions. The paper also examines whether an Islamic state stands in contrast to democratic values and the general misunderstanding that has emerged between Islam and parts of the world since 9/11. The events of 2011 will certainly have us re-examining and recreating hypotheses, challenging our perceptions of conflict, regime change and the direction the Arab Spring may be going in. This discussion shifts away from contemporary rhetoric, attempting to show why a new line of thinking is needed in light of the emerging political climate.

Islam: Dispelling the myths

The post 9/11 world has been littered with a great number of ideas and terms, which, although far-removed from fact, have become ingrained in the perceptions of the masses. Two common examples would be the terms ‘Islamism’ and ‘Salafism’, which carry negative connotations related to the Islamic faith. Giving no real heed to the respective proposals of political parties participating in the Arab Spring, any party with an inkling of Islamic thought has immediately been branded as ‘Islamist’: radical and incompatible with any civilised, progressive political system. Reasons for this are twofold, emanating from within the faith itself and outside, with both sides carrying responsibility. From within the faith, a combination of both passively misunderstood and actively distorted tenets have given rise to activities with no basis in Shariah law. Moreover, Islam is a faith with an extremely diverse following, spanning regions, ethnicities and nationalities. Given the mix of the religion with vast numbers of various cultures and nationalities, it is best to be wary of branding radical activity as ‘Islamic’ for more often than not, such practices have no link to the actual teachings of Islam at all.

Externally, a great number of states have contributed to misconceptions surrounding the faith. In the United States (US), the Government has fostered a very defensive, hostile mentality among its citizens, depicting Islam as an entity to be feared, rather than one of the three major monotheistic faiths that shares immense similarities with Christianity and Judaism. While the US has done this in the “interests of national security,” in Europe the same mentality has been created but for reasons related to national identity, liberal values, and the like. Collectively, the result has been the violation of fundamental human rights in even the most seemingly democratic and liberal countries. Together with this, we have the issue of complacency within the media, academia,⁽²⁾ and general public alike, which are content to accept and even propagate such stereotypes as fact. Thus, it comes as no surprise that from a culture of such intolerance, there would be an outcry against the idea of political Islam.

The concept of jihad

One of the most misunderstood concepts is undoubtedly that of jihad. Now known as ‘holy war’ in the Western world, the literal meaning of jihad, which is to “struggle” or “strive” in the way of God, is not confined to armed struggle as many mistakenly believe. Prophet Muhammad⁽³⁾ is reported to have said that the noblest form of jihad is the proclamation of truth in the face of a tyrant ruler⁽⁴⁾ and that the greatest jihad is not militaristic in nature but spiritual: not gaining victory over an enemy but over oneself in an effort to attain righteousness.⁽⁵⁾

To illustrate the distortion of the concept, we may examine Boko Haram of Nigeria. The group seeks the implementation of Shariah law at a national level (Shariah is already applicable in 12 out of Nigeria’s 37 provinces) and the establishment of an Islamic state and has embarked on a campaign of violence (which they claim to be undertaking in the name of Allah, for the sake of religion), which led to the killings of at least 425 people in 2011 alone.⁽⁶⁾ Three points must be noted here. Firstly, Islam forbids such violence: “and do not take any human being's life which God has declared to be sacred – otherwise than in [the pursuit of] justice: this has He enjoined upon you so that you might use your reason”⁽⁷⁾ and “if anyone slays a human being – unless it be [in punishment] for murder or for spreading corruption on earth – it shall be as though he had slain all mankind; whereas, if anyone saves a life, it shall be as though he had saved the lives of all mankind.”⁽⁸⁾ What is ignored by groups such as Boko Haram are the decrees limiting jihad to self-defence and the very strict decrees on when it may be used pre-emptively.⁽⁹⁾ The Qur’an emphatically states: “Fight in the way of God against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! God loveth not aggressors.⁽¹⁰⁾ And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God; but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression.”⁽¹¹⁾

Secondly, Islam makes it binding upon its followers to obey the laws of their countries, even secular/non-Muslim countries, as long as they are not required to undertake anything that would violate their own Islamic beliefs and practices.⁽¹²⁾ Thirdly, Jews and Christians are considered to be ‘People of the Book’, who are to be given state protection (in an Islamic state) as well as the right to practice their respective faiths if living under Islamic rule.⁽¹³⁾ The Qur’an, along with the traditions of Prophet Muhammad,⁽¹⁴⁾ advocate tolerant relations between Muslims and the People of the Book, seeing them as part of one larger unit: “And dispute ye not with the People of the Book, except with means better (than mere disputation), unless it be with those of them who inflict wrong (and injury): but say, "We believe in the revelation which has come down to us and in that which came down to you; Our God and your God is one; and it is to Him we submit.”⁽¹⁵⁾

We may consider further the example set by Salahuddin Ayyubi, who ruled over Egypt and greater Syria in the 12th century. Provoked into a war by Raynald of Chatillon, Salahuddin proceeded to recapture Jerusalem in 1187, after which he granted the defeated Christian force safe passage out of the city and also access to Jerusalem for those wanting to visit for religious purposes (Jews who were also subject to persecution during the Crusades were called to resettle in the city). Prisoners of war who could not afford to pay their ransoms were set free by Salahuddin.⁽¹⁶⁾ What makes his actions remarkable was the way in which Salahuddin did not resort to revenge when the opportunity arose. His offer of a treaty instead surprised even his enemies (notably Richard I of England) for, at the advent of that war, the Muslim and Jewish inhabitants had faced brutal persecution from Crusader forces. Thus, what came to characterise Salahuddin was the respect he commanded even from his enemies. Another element of Islamic rule to take into account from Salahuddin’s time was the practice and process of mutual consultation (shura) upon which Islamic governance is based. Consultation on state matters would take place between diverse groups and would include chiefs of state, scholars, jurists, and judges who are, in effect, representatives of the masses.

Islamic jus in bello

Islam has its own system of jus in bello, which is there to regulate conduct during times of war. Such rules are not unlike those codified in the four Geneva Conventions or other international legal instruments, which form part of modern international law. For example, one of the most important rules of war developed under Islam states that in times of war, women, children, and the elderly may not be harmed. Such rules were laid down firmly by the Rightly Guided Khulafa and were so precise that they went as far as to stipulate that vegetation may not be destroyed and an enemy’s water supply may not be disrupted.⁽¹⁷⁾ Regarding prisoners of war, it was the second Khalifa, Umar ibn Khattab, who decreed that prisoners should not be separated from their relatives during captivity and that they should be provided with adequate clothing and food. Such illustrations should serve as examples to indicate that ‘terrorism’ is then forbidden under Islamic law, because 1) the prime targets of such acts are civilians and 2) if humane treatment is to be given to non-combatants during times of war, what may be said of their position during times of peace? Following this, is then the logical conclusion that there may be no such thing as ‘Islamic terrorism’, and in order not to further alienate a worldwide Muslim population already grappling with the effects of Islamophobia, it is time to stop labelling it as such.

Islam versus the West?

Another misconception is the notion that the Muslim world at large has some sort of inherent aversion to modernity, Western society, and culture. However, a brief examination of Western foreign policy in relation to Muslim nations will give the simple insight needed to explain the real reason behind strained relations with the West.

In Somalia, the US spent years supporting former dictator Siad Barre’s repressive regime. After the fall of Barre, interference in the country’s internal affairs continued when the US helped to topple the Union of Islamic Courts, which had immense public support after bringing order to Mogadishu for the first time in 15 years. The US then went on to endorse a Government that had no legitimacy among the Somali people (the disastrous Transitional Federal Government, which after almost a decade in power, has yet to exercise control over the failed state) and subsequently, an Ethiopian invasion into Somalia,⁽¹⁸⁾ which only contributed to the chaos that has come to characterise this country.

Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and Yemen have each had their sovereignty violated and seen their civilian populations become the subjects of mass carnage because of the reckless use of uncontrolled power by Western nations. Never before has a war been waged with such utter callousness. The US and her allies declared war not on a defined country, group or sect but on ‘terrorism’, thereby giving themselves the license to act without limits, without being confined to a specific territory and without being subject to international law. The concept of terrorism itself has become so overused and obscured that we have begun to overlook the absurdity of this war. Moreover, it must be mentioned here that the insurgencies the US currently faces abroad are insurgencies that arose after the invasion of these respective countries, in direct response to such invasions.

In Palestine, the British saw fit to divide up and appropriate land belonging to others and in doing so left little regard for the native population of that land. It was Balfour himself who stated: “...in Palestine we do not propose even to go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country.” In his opinion, Zionism was “of far profounder import than the desire and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land.”⁽¹⁹⁾ Historical considerations aside, this attitude has come to mark the current conflict in that region. The US has stood by Israel, through funding the country’s aggression in the region and preventing its accountability to the international community by the constant use of its veto power at the United Nations, leaving little doubt as to the complicity of the US in the crimes committed by Israel.

In light of this, it must be asked if animosity towards the West is then not the most normal, human reaction? Moreover, the post 9/11 era has seen Western actions move from military hostility to cultural and social repression as well. The most common examples would be the banning of the headscarf and face veils in parts of Europe or the banning of minarets in Switzerland. Each of these – expressions of religious identity and freedom – should face no repression in liberal democracies. In spite of this, it is still the Muslim world that is portrayed as not forthcoming in terms of co-existence and mutual cooperation. The question which then arises is whether Western nations will refuse to cooperate until Muslim nations (or even African/Latin American nations for that matter) are turned into carbon copies of themselves or should the Muslim world shy away from its very identity in order to maintain amicable relations with the West?

George W. Bush and his allies proudly declared a mission to civilise Iraq, to bring forth the gift of democracy to what was seen as a backward nation, unable to progress by itself. This mission to civilise has a growing number of parallels, though not all military in nature. In many instances Western nations seem intent on duplicating their political, social, and economic systems. For any who deny this fact, we may simply examine the crisis in Western Europe today where minorities are made to battle to hold onto any sense of religious or cultural identity. In France, the controversial headscarf issue has traversed many paths. There was the initial stage where the headscarf was deemed inappropriate because such religious expression did not fit in with public, secular institutions. Though this is in line with the principle of laïcité or secularism that France holds dear, it remains questionable in light of President Nicolas Sarkozy’s remarks on laïcité positive (whereby he appears to favour greater inclusion of religion in public affairs, emphasising that France is rooted in Christianity),⁽²⁰⁾ leading us to wonder if different values apply for different sects of one society. Rhetoric on the issue then changed to liberating Muslim women from the repression apparently brought on by the headscarf. When Muslim women stood up in protest to this, the agenda shifted to the protection of French values and the issue of assimilation of minorities. Here, non-Muslim feminists went as far as to say that “...the Islamic veil takes us all – Muslim and non-Muslim – back to discrimination against women that is intolerable” and that this form of dress impedes personal growth and development.⁽²¹⁾ If this was indeed the case, a more appropriate approach would have been consultation, keeping in mind that liberation lies not in compelling one to dress or not dress in a certain way, but rather giving individuals the opportunity and space to decide such matters for themselves. In the same way that Western feminists were not qualified to speak for Muslim women, so is the case with Western voices attempting to speak for masses regarding the political and economic system which Muslim nations should follow. Indeed, it is an insult to those who fought so ardently for their rights and to assume that they cannot by themselves choose an appropriate system.

Islamism

Oddly enough, those speaking out so vociferously against any sort of “Islamist” Government (and they are entitled to do so) have not been specific about what exactly it is that we should be concerned about. Is it perhaps a fear that North Africa will be overrun by women in blue burkas and fully-bearded men? Or perhaps that a potential Islamist Government will stage some sort of conquest of the West (no doubt in an attempt to “spread Islam by the sword”) if they actually move into power? The global community as a whole has been so deeply indoctrinated by anti-Islam propaganda that they no longer question whether these stereotypes are in any way justified or not.

The threat of radicalisation, which some have pushed forward, is a debatable one. Extremism is not an action but a reaction and at the very roots of extremism we find disillusionment; disillusionment because of poor economic conditions, a lack of opportunity to progress, political repression, and even religious repression. If Arab Spring nations were to address these issues, whether in an Islamic framework or otherwise, the threat of radicalisation would reduce as a result.

The future of the Arab Spring

Many have called for Arab nations to follow the ‘Turkish model of democracy’, implying that secularism should govern the search for new avenues of governance. What has been missed here is that Turkey is far from being a shining example of governance. To understand this, we may look at the unsolved Kurdish question which continues to fester, along with the restrictions on press freedom and religious freedom which mark this seemingly liberal nation. Examples of such suppression abound. See, for instance, Article 301 of Turkey’s Penal Code, which makes it a criminal offence to merely discuss Turkey’s responsibility for the Armenian genocide; the issue of Merve Kavakçı, a Turkish politician who was removed from Parliament and prevented from taking her Parliamentary oath for wearing her headscarf into Parliament,⁽²²⁾ or the story of Kurdish politician, Leyla Zana, who caused an uproar (and was soon after imprisoned for 10 years for alleged links to the Kurdistan Workers Party) for speaking in Kurdish also during a Parliamentary oath-taking ceremony.

New political regimes in the Arab world need not necessarily follow a strictly defined path or draw on one particular ideological pool. In Pakistan, recent developments have shown increasing support for the Tehreek-e-Insaf (Movement for Justice) party, which espouses Islamic values (such as firm programmes of social welfare) while incorporating liberal and secular elements both in terms of party membership and ideological stance. While only time will tell of the success or otherwise of this party, its propositions are refreshing, which is perhaps part of the reason for its growing appeal among Pakistan’s youth. The party’s popularity may stem from many factors: the usual political rhetoric and promises which precede any election (party leader Imran Khan has promised to eliminate all Government corruption within 90 days of taking office in the event that he wins the upcoming election), but also other factors such as greater inclusion of the country’s long-marginalised Baloch population. Furthermore, the party has drawn support for actually admitting that Pakistan is a country in the midst of a civil war. This approach, though not loaded with the message of optimism, hope, freedom, etc., is pragmatic and is perhaps what disillusioned Egyptians, Libyans, and Tunisians need to work through in the coming years.

The Tehreek-e-Insaf has also stated that the only Western help that would be welcome in Pakistan would be assistance to ensure a smooth election process.⁽²³⁾ This has further relevance as the Arab masses in many countries perceive their dictatorial regimes’ ties to the West to be detrimental to their interests. Though leaders have come out lauding the courage of Arab youth for breaking through their repressive regimes, the salient facts are these: many Western nations, despite all declarations in favour of democracy, have no real problem with repressive regimes. Outspoken and active on Libya but shockingly silent on Bahrain, Saudi Arabia or Yemen, the US has displayed standards that are an insult to the global human rights regime. While Hillary Clinton called for the capture of Muammar Gaddafi “dead or alive,” she (in the same time period) gave a diplomatic call for President Bashar al-Assad to “step aside;”⁽²⁴⁾ note not step down but step aside. Thus, while not calling for the cutting of ties with Western nations, a re-evaluation of the relations between these countries is definitely in order.

The road ahead

From the African continent, we may take heed of the path once followed by Burkina Faso’s former leader, Thomas Sankara. When Sankara took over what was then Upper Volta in 1983, he did not profess to bring about democracy. What he stood for was change and in the short, but remarkable, period during which Sankara ruled, concrete change was indeed what he brought about. Sankara’s regime showed that authoritarian rule need not always be accompanied by gross human rights violations. His regime was perhaps not opposed because of the commendable social reforms, which took place during his four years in power. Civil rights have obviously taken on greater importance since the 1980s and rightfully so. But the lesson to be taken away here is the importance of actual reform. At the risk of over-simplifying the matter, rights to free speech, press freedom, etc. can only fill a certain portion of a progressive nation’s needs. At its core, much of the discontent that brought about the tide of revolution in the Arab world was the result of unemployment, Government corruption, and poverty. Egypt, to name just one example, has one of the highest unemployment rates among young people in Africa.⁽²⁵⁾ Compounding this problem are high annual inflation rates⁽²⁶⁾ and the country’s large external debt (ZAR 250 billion/US$ 31 billion).⁽²⁷⁾ Thus, there needs to be an emphasis on the creation of opportunity. Theoretical rights to education, healthcare or housing are meaningless if there is a lack of a suitable path, along with tangible reforms, through which these may manifest.

It was Sankara who said: “We must dare to invent the future.” And herein lies perhaps the most pertinent point. For the first time in the respective histories of these countries, the people of nations such as Egypt, Libya, and Tunisia have an opportunity to voice their wishes and possibly see a better future materialise. This re-creation process should not be dictated by outdated notions such as those that would have us believe that democracy is an infallible system, which automatically brings about change or vague and tired notions, which hold that any other system is a threat. True support and cooperation will come about by losing the imperialist mentality and not attempting to dictate to any of these nations what will be suitable to their unique needs. It was Adolf Hitler who stressed that diversity was a weakening force, and it is rather disturbing to see his sentiments echoed in a world which has made an immense amount of progress since then. We need to be mindful of the potential effects of increased polarisation between East and West. Anders Breivik and his warped view of society is a perfect example of why the issue needs to be addressed now. In the same vein, it is important to note that this critical political juncture is the point at which mutual understanding may be built.

Written by Raeesah Cassim Cachalia ⁽¹⁾

NOTES:

(1) Contact Raeesah Cassim Cachalia through Consultancy Africa Intelligence’s Conflict and Terrorism Unit (conflict.terrorism@consultancyafrica.com).
(2) As an illustration, a recent piece on conflict in Nigeria stated: “Boko Haram promotes a version of Islam, which forbids Muslims to take part in any political or social activity associated with Western society.” The piece does not explain this alleged version of Islam, where it stems from and in doing so does not consider that such version may not even exist. See Theron, A. ‘Nigeria’s Boko Haram: The emerging threat expanding’, 18 July 2011, http://www.consultancyafrica.com.
(3) Peace be upon him.
(4) See in this regard the remarkable dialogue between Sa’eed ibn Jubayr, an Abyssinian youth and the tyrannical ruler of the time, Hajjaj ibn Yusuf - http://www.islamicboard.com.
(5) A man once asked the Prophet Muhammad: "Should I join the jihad?" He asked, "Do you have parents?" The man said, "Yes!" The Prophet(S) said, "then strive by (serving) them!" (Sahih Al-Bukhari, #5972).
(6) ‘Nigeria: Boko Haram Attacks Indefensible’, Human Rights Watch, 8 November 2011, http://www.hrw.org.
(7) Qur’an, 6:151.
(8) Qur’an, 5:32.
(9) Considerations here would include the existence of any treaties between the parties, the presence of People of the Book (Christians or Jews) in the Muslim land seeking to initiate jihad among others.
(10) Qur’an, 2:190.
(11) Qur’an, 2:193.
(12) Based on the concept of Aqd-al-amaan, citizenship is regarded as a covenant between a citizen and a state, which grants security.
(13) As was the case of large numbers of non-Muslims residing in Muslim lands during the Ottoman Empire.
(14) Peace be upon him.
(15) Qur’an 29:46.
(16) Lane-Poole, S. Saladin and the fall of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, New York.
(17) See in this regard the Battle of Siffin and the Khalifa, Ali ibn Abu Talib’s, decree on the issue of water.
(18) Two attempts were made at the United Nations Security Council to prompt Ethiopia to withdraw but both attempts were blocked by the US through the use of its veto power.
(19) Fisk, R. 2001. Pity the Nation (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
(20) See Sarkozy’s speech at the Vatican in 2007 in this regard.
(21) Kavakçı, M., ‘Headscarf Heresy’, Foreign Policy, 1 May 2004, http://www.foreignpolicy.com.
(22) Albeit on different grounds, Kavakçı was stripped of her Turkish citizenship 11 days after the incident.
(23) ‘Speech on the soft revolution in Pakistan’, University of Cambridge, 19 September 2011, http://www.youtube.com.
(24) ‘Hillary Clinton Tells Syria Dictator – Step Down Now!’, 18 August 2011, http://www.youtube.com.
(25) 25% of people between the ages of 15 and 24. Indexmundi, http://www.indexmundi.com.
(26) 13% per annum, Indexmundi, http://www.indexmundi.com.
(27) Indexmundi website, http://www.indexmundi.com.