How Green is my Valley? - By MJ Akbar

Islam and Muslim nations, particularly those with energy resources, are being subjected to an intellectual assault, based on a carefully constructed dialectic, disseminated through mass media, that must be challenged by facts and reason. Islam and Muslim nations, particularly those with energy resources, are being subjected to an intellectual assault, based on a carefully constructed dialectic,  disseminated through mass media, that must be challenged by facts and reason.

We Muslims lose the argument when we become either submissive-defensive, or aggressive-hysterical. There is a lot of space in-between. We need to establish 
that an alternative voice is not a hostile voice.

It is ironical that there should be so much misunderstanding between Americans and Muslims over faith, given that they may be the only true believers left. A Pew poll taken early this year indicated that 60% of Americans pray once a day, 70% say that the American President must have strong religious beliefs and 61% favour tighter restrictions on a moral issue like abortion. I do not have 
equivalent figures for Muslims, but in each category the number would probably 
be the same or higher. A Muslim President or Prime Minister makes it a point to 
be seen periodically  at Friday prayers. Europe, in contrast, lost religion to 
rationalism or one of its by-products, communism. Two European atheists, 
Marx and Lenin, had such impact that they ravaged Tao, Confucius and Buddha 
in half of Asia and Christ in half of Europe.

Religion is not limited to human reason. Faith is ethical, aesthetic, doctrinaire and 
inspirational. Islam acknowledges the power and beauty of the one Creator, Allah, 
and accepts that while we may know how we are born and die, we do not know why. 
Muslims believe in existence before and after death: Inna lillahe wa inna e-laihe raajaoo 
(From Allah we come, to Allah we go). The Islamic view of heaven 
and hell is no more "unreasonable" than the Christian or Judaic one. 

Problems arise when one incidental aspect of a faith is wrenched from context and 
used to demonise a religion and its believers. Every suicide mission is sneered at as 
a journey to the virgins of Heaven than seen for what it often (though not always) 
is: a cry of despair. Even a cursory reading of the Islamic text indicates that we 
do not retain our physical bodies after death and that the needs and pleasures of 
this life are very different from those of the next. But allegory is deliberately 
misrepresented, because it seeks to trivialise the roots of sacrifice, particularly the 
sacrifice of life. Demonisation is conducted like a choir through the media and it 
must be answered. This answer must come from a common voice. 

The Organisation of Islamic Conference must have two sets of priorities: tactical 
and strategic. An immediate priority is to establish that common voice to win the 
battle for the mind. 

A critical fact: the intellectual onslaught against Muslims started long before 9/11, 
it was not a reaction. Huntington wrote about a clash of civilisations seven years 
before 9/11. It was a time when almost every Muslim nation had supported 
America in the wars for the liberation of Afghanistan and Kuwait. To blame the 
neocons is not enough. We have to answer them.

Judging by some of the reporting in the West, one would imagine that suicide was 
invented by Muslims. Suicide missions have always been an element of war tactics, 
with the highest honours being reserved for those who risk their lives to the 
maximum. One commentator wrote recently in the Guardian that surely Samson 
was the world’s most famous suicide-missionary. Japanese air force pilots in the 
Second World War made kamikaze a tool of battle. The American reaction was 
interesting and is still relevant. "The psychology behind (kamikaze) was too alien to 
us. Americans who fight to live, find it hard to realise that another people will fight 
to die," said Admiral William Frederick Halsey (1884-1959), commander of the US 
3rd Fleet, after the kamikaze attack on USS Intrepid, 25 October 1944.

The Japanese did not view kamikaze as suicide: they called it a moral victory over 
cowards who take comfort in numbers. They told the pilots: ‘Put the sorrows and 
joys of life behind you, for as you move towards death you move towards heaven.’ 

Vice Admiral Takiiro Onishi wrote a haiku for the pilots:

Blossoming today, tomorrow scattered

Life is like a delicate flower

Can one expect the fragrance to last forever?

The most effective use of suicide missions in what might be called irregular war 
has been made by the Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka, who are Hindus. One such mission 
took the life of a beloved Prime Minister of India, Rajiv Gandhi. But such has been 
the distortion of world opinion that the average person today believes that 
"terrorism" is something created by the doctrines of Islam. This is calumny of the 
most perfidious kind. 

We must address the complex and emotive reaction to events like 9/11 and the 
London bombings. I do not agree with suicide missions, but surely we need to 
understand that they are not all alike. In some cases, as during the obvious 
occupation of territory by a foreign, hostile power, a suicide mission becomes an 
expression of the depths of a young person’s despair and desperation. We must 
work to end suicide missions by finding answers to that desperation. We must also 
define the difference between unacceptable terrorism and the need for struggle. 
There is no age in history without its share of problems and injustice. But if 
injustice is addressed through peaceful dialogue, which must always remain the 
objective of any sane individual or nation, then there is no need for armed struggle 
or suicide missions. This must be a central theme of our world view.

A few weeks ago, in mid-August, I was at a seminar in Berlin on "Europe and 
Modern Islam". My German hosts, members of a political party that hopes to be in 
power later this month, were neither prejudiced nor malicious; in fact they were 
anxious to build bridges over the stream of ignorance that has entered 
contemporary consciousness. And yet, almost every prejudiced nuance about 
Muslims was raised, almost always unconsciously. 

The chairman of one session kept criticising female circumcision until I pointed out 
that its origins were African-tribal. The hijab, naturally, was mentioned, until I 
argued that covering the head was a normal symbol of modesty for women in the 
east across religious denominations — and that I had never ever seen an icon or 
painting by a Christian of the Virgin Mary in which she did not wear a form of hijab; 
and that every Catholic nun till today wore the traditional headdress. It was a 
strange paradox, I thought, that a thong was considered civilised but a scarf was 
called barbaric. 

I heard the oft-repeated jibe that Muslims had not had their renaissance and had 
to point out that you needed renaissance only if you had gone through the Dark 
Ages: China, India, and the regions of the Ottoman Empire had no experience of 
such a dark age, for there were a hundred bookshops in Baghdad when Oxford 
University was still two hundred years away. A lady who had a doctorate said, in 
response to my remarks, that a Muslim had assassinated Mahatma Gandhi and was 
astonished when I pointed that a Brahmin called Godse had been the assassin. 

Like so many other Muslims, I too have been taunted and told that my religion is 
nothing but "Jihad". I am not defensive about the basic tenets of my faith. Islam is 
a religion of peace, but it recognises that in certain conditions, war may be forced 
upon you. It defines a legitimate war vis a vis an illegitimate one. Jihad is a war 
against injustice. The Prophet (PBUH) never took up arms during the long years of 
oppression and tyranny in Makkah; the war verses of the Quran were revealed only 
when persecution began to try and destroy the faith, and the Prophet was forced 
to take up arms against injustice. Jihad has clear rules: it has been stressed that 
you cannot kill women, children and innocents in a Jihad; you cannot even destroy 
palm trees. And hence my proposition: Every Jihad is a war fought by Muslims, but 
every war fought by Muslims is not a Jihad. 

The very title of the Berlin seminar, "Europe and Modern Islam", was nonsense. To 
begin with, there is nothing called modern or medieval or ancient Islam; Islam is 
Islam. Second, ‘West’ is geography and ‘Islam’ is a religion. How can you compare 
the two? You can discuss the West and West Asia, or South Asia, or wherever. 
Alternatively you can discuss Islam and Christianity. West vis a vis Islam means 
something only if there is a prejudiced sub-text in which ‘West’ implicitly 
corresponds to enlightenment, progress and all that is modern-good, while ‘Islam’ 
represents darkness, regress and all that is old-decadent. The notion of Islam as a 
"barbaric" religion while Christianity was civilised, a staple of the Crusades, has not 
been eliminated from the discourse. 

The term ‘Islam’, when used as a collective noun for Muslim nations, throws a 
range of different histories and cultures into a meaningless common basket: the 
reasons for Indonesia’s current levels of economic, political and social development 
have absolutely nothing to do with Morocco’s. To suggest that Islam has kept 
some nations both poor and/or autocratic is a corruption of facts and a reduction 
of complex reality to stupidity. 

Similarly, ‘Islam and Democracy’. Islam is 1,400 years old. How old is democracy? 
America is the only nation with any right to call democracy two centuries old, for 
the American Constitution is an outstanding template of individual and collective 
freedom. And yet American democracy did not mean the same thing to a black 
and a white a generation ago. It was only after the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that 
the number of registered African-American voters in a state like Mississippi rose 
from 7%, in 1964, to 70% by 1968. France promised itself liberty, equality and 
fraternity three years after America won her independence, but took another 
century before doing something institutional about it. Universal franchise in the 
mother of democracies, Britain, is a 20th century story. Eastern Europe is just 
discovering the pleasures of adult franchise, and more than a billion Chinese have 
not known democracy till this day. I do not know if any academic institution has 
held a seminar on Confucianism and democracy.

If many Muslim nations remain undemocratic, the reasons lie in their history, 
including, in many cases, the history of colonisation and neo-colonisation, rather 
than in faith. 

It is wrong to blame Islam for the sins of Muslims. It was not Christianity’s fault 
that Latin America was mostly run by dictators who went to church. Islam does 
not glorify autocracy; instead it consciously advocates democratic ideas like social 
justice, equality and charity as fundamental principles. Progressive Muslim scholars 
have noted consistently that Islam is a democratic doctrine. In 1940, one of the 
great Indian Muslim thinkers and freedom-fighters, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, gave 
a speech at Ramgarh upon being elected president of the Indian National Congress. 
Among Islam’s greatest contributions to India, he argued, was the gift of 
democratic ideas. 

A famous thesis talks of the end of history. When attempting to understand the 
state of the Muslim world today, let me propose an alternate thought: The 
beginning of history. This history begins in 1918, for that was the year in which, for 
all practical purposes, every Muslim in the world was colonised. Iran might claim 
that it was independent, but only nominally so: Britain and Russia had divided the 
country into "zones of influence" as far back as in 1906. The defeat of the 
Ottoman empire in 1918 (after the collapse of the Mughal empire 60 years before) 
was the last nail in the long-festering coffin of Muslim independence. Nationalist 
Arabs expected what had been promised during the war. Instead, the policies of 
the West, then led by Britain and France, hinged around the politics of oil. For the 
people, the control of oil became the most important definition of independence. 

Democracy is essential, but it is impossible without sovereignty. A free vote under 
the watchful eye of American soldiers will always be suspect, irrespective of how 
sincere it is: no one needs a fifth wheel on the democracy coach. This is not the 
first time that occupation has been sold as a form of liberation: this was the 
rationale used by the British in Egypt in 1882. I might add that no one wants to 
conquer a poor nation. Robert Clive called Murshidabad, a provincial capital of 
India, as rich as London when he entered the city as a victor in 1757. In 1790 
(about 85 years after the death of the last great Mughal, Aurangzeb, and therefore 
nearly a century of instability) India produced more than 23% of the world’s 
manufacturing output and Britain less than 2%. In 1947, the year India became 
free, Britain had more than 23% of the world’s manufacturing output and India less 
than 2%. An ideologue could not have hoped for neater figures. 

But answers do not lie in anger. They lie in introspection. The strategic vision of 
the OIC must address the basic problems of the Muslims, problems that Muslims 
have created for themselves. The OIC must offer an agenda for action to reverse 
this decline.

A deep political, economic and social apathy afflicts too much of the Muslim world. 
There is no common formula for this: each Muslim country must find answers that 
emerge from its own stage of development. We must have the honesty to 
acknowledge that all Muslims do not live in the 21st century. Many still live in the 
19th century, through no fault of their own, for they have been betrayed by their 
leaderships. But there is at least one idea that can be considered relevant across 
boundaries: the need to invest in knowledge.

We are sitting in the shadow of the Kaabah Sharif: I suggest to you that there are 
two Islamic conferences going on, one inside the room and the other in the Holy 
Mosque. We are the establishment. The other is the conference among the people. 
The distance between the two has grown too large. Look at the faces of Muslims 
and you will see on many of them poverty. The OIC has little right to exist unless 
the elimination of poverty among Muslims becomes a vital priority of the next 10 
years. Hunger is the worst form of oppression. We need an immediate anti-poverty 
programme. This does not mean just handing out aid: aid is just band-aid when the 
disease is a cancer. We need programmes that create an economy in the poorest 
Muslim nations, free of waste and corruption.

Muslim nations are in decline not because they have a shortage of guns, but 
because they have lost the Knowledge Edge. Power does not flow from the barrel 
of a gun; it flows from the fountainhead of knowledge. In 1232 the Sultan of Egypt 
presented Frederick, leader of the Bloodless Crusade, with an astronomical clock 
that opened the doors of technology to Europe. By the 18th century Egypt could 
not compete with the cuckoo clock. That decline has to be reversed. We need a 
Knowledge Fund that can create half a dozen universities and many times that 
number of schools that rank among the best in the world, pay the best salaries to 
teachers and create an environment nurtured by academic freedom. There is 
enough money; we need the will.

The OIC must stake a strong stand against the self-destructive sectarianism that 
divides Muslim societies. We often behave as if the interpreters of the law are 
more important than the faith. The Prophet gave us one Islam. Muslims have 
divided it into many sects.

We need social reform — to ensure the full participation of women in education and 
development that was among the glorious achievements of the first phase of 
Muslim history. If you tell a non-Muslim today that the Prophet’s wife ran a 
successful business, you will invite an incredulous sneer.

We need political reform. Every Muslim nation must have an inclusive polity in 
which traditional systems leave sufficient space for contemporary demands. 
Democracy may be a new idea, but it is the best one we have. The test of a 
democracy is the vulnerability of a government. Europe has shown that 
democracy can co-exist with a traditional system like monarchy.

We are vulnerable because, in a classic symptom of despair, the Muslim voice is 
being taken over by deviants. Why? Muslim governments must look into their 
hearts and ask whether they are doing enough to end internal and external 
injustice. Why do Muslims fantasize about Saladin? Precisely because they want a 
leader who will stand up for their legitimate demands. Saladin was no extremist; he 
was in fact almost assassinated by deviants of his time. 

The OIC has a claim to be the legitimate voice of Muslims. If so, it must challenge 
double standards. An Iranian has the right to ask why his nuclear programme is 
being threatened while Israel is permitted to become a nuclear military power. 
Why should there be two laws? Israel no longer has to fear for its existence. King 
Abdullah’s breakthrough peace proposals recognize the right of Israel to exist, and 
correctly so. Does Britain, which actively helped Israel to become a nuclear 
military power, accept that there are conditions in which a nation might be 
justified in becoming a secret nuclear power? 

Too many Muslim nations believe in a bank account rather than an economy. Many 
nations have wealth; how many have used it for laboratories that employ 
scientists to do basic research on biotechnology? Instead of creating industries to 
produce goods that can be better than the best, we have created a mall economy 
in which shops are full of imports. I am not an isolationist; but I would like ‘Made in 
Saudi Arabia’ to compete with ‘Made in USA’. 

We are vulnerable because our intellectual elites have lost the plot, and our 
political-financial elites have lost the courage to dream of a future for their people. 

The Makkah conference, convened at the behest of Custodian of the Two Holy 
Mosques, King Abdullah Bin Abdul Aziz, to formulate a new vision for the many 
nations in which the ummah lives, must begin the long and difficult journey 
towards a new dream.

[The three-day conference, convened by Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah ibn Saud, 
gathered intellectuals and scholars from around the globe to examine the issues 
and challenges facing the Muslim world at  the Organisation of Islamic 
Conference (OIC), Makkah. Secretary-General Professor Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, 
a Turkish national, has energised the OIC, and with the call from King Abdullah,
delegates from Turkey, Africa, West Asia, India and Pakistan are hopeful 
that the organisation will be resurrected to have a positive impact on the 
current challenges the Muslim world faces.  
M.J. Akbar, represented India at the meeting.(September 10-12, 2005)]

The three-day conference, convened by Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah ibn Saud, 
has gathered intellectuals and scholars from around the globe to examine the issues and challenges facing the Muslim world at  the Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC), Makkah. Secretary-General Professor Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, a Turkish national, has energised the OIC, and with the call from King Abdullah, delegates from Turkey, Africa, West Asia, India and Pakistan are hopeful that the organisation will be resurrected to have a positive impact on the current challenges the Muslim world faces.  

M.J. Akbar, represented India at the meeting. Talking to reporters on the sidelines of the conference, he said: "To blame the American neocons isn’t enough. 
The Muslim world will have to come up with convincing answers. The OIC must have 
two sets of priorities — tactical and strategic, but the immediate priority is to 
establish a common voice to win the battle for the mind. The OIC must first 
accurately assess where Muslims are. All Muslims don’t live in the 21st century. 
Many are still in the 19th and through no fault of their own, for they have been
betrayed by their leaderships. Once we know where we are, we can chalk out and 
estimate the distance to the first horizon."According to MJ, the Makkah discussion 
is an opportunity for rebirth and has the potential to become a historic milestone. 
"This has been possible only because of King Abdullah," he said. "It would be no 
exaggeration to say that the Muslim world has suddenly begun to feel excited 
about new possibilities," he added. 

Akbar’s presence has been widely welcomed in the local media. "It is a great 
honour for Indians that Akbar is representing them," said Syed Liyaquat Hussain,  
a senior editor with the Jeddah-based Arab News.

Habib Shaikh, who reports on Middle Eastern affairs for the Dubai-based 
Khaleej Times, said, "That Akbar is one of the eminent persons, and the 
only one from India at the Makkah conference, reflects the OIC’s confidence in India,
the country with the second largest bloc of Muslims."
- Posted by ilaxi 
(Article in Asian Age:(International) Top Story by Siraj Wahab, Arab News)