Achieving Peace In The Arab World
March 2011
War and civil unrest in the Arab world today are at extremely high
levels. Social acceptance by and
of Muslims to the Western world is one of the biggest hiatuses in world harmony
now facing modern culture. And a
deep-seated need among many Muslims only adds fuel to the fire and strengthens
this anti-Arab sentiment in the United States and elsewhere . Innocent Muslims are singled out by the
DHS for questioning about anti-American activity, communities shun Muslim
places of worship and other Arab congregations, and worldwide many of them
themselves produce some of the most hate-filled, violence-prone rhetoric in the
modern world. Why are these
problems so rampant? Why is the
sentiment so strong? And what can
be done by our national leaders and citizens alike to remedy such a broad range
of problems? In this paper I
intend to look at some of the underlying causes of conflict amongst Arabs and
Muslims, analyze some ways of circumventing them, and posit some practical
solutions for change that will, in hope, foster a stronger, more positive
identity for the faith of Islam, and inculcate a more peaceful understanding of
change between nations currently in crisis.
Unrest in the Arab world is nothing new. One only has to look at the Israeli-Palestine conflict to
see evidence of militarized conflict.
Decades of fighting between the Israelis and Muslim factions of Hamas
and Fatah over control of small pieces of land have split apart families,
ruined homes people have kept for ages, and marginalized the real reason
countries want to keep land in the first place, changing rights to holy and
other lands held by Jewish Israel into an Arab-world bloodbath.
And in light of this holy and ruthless war ruining
views of religiosity and sanctity in Arabia, one should look also at the
Iran-Iraq War lasting from 1980 when Iraq first attacked Iran until a ceasefire
was declared in 1988. Were the
aims of this war in one of the most notably religious areas the world over and
the birthplace of human civilization justified as beimg simply the border
dispute claimed by the attacking Iraqis?
Iraq was no doubt playing upon the unrest in Iran due to its recent
revolution and thought they could succeed. Was this war due to greed over oil reserves? Possibly. Both Iran and Iraq contain immense wealths of oil reserves
that could make their leaders very wealthy men. At the time of his assassination by western forces, Saddam
Hussein was worth by estimates between six and eight billion dollars in
personal assets. More than enough
to retire on. But excuses were
made at the time of this war that there would be a Shiite insurgency within
Sunni-ruled Iraq due to the success of Shiites in the Iran revolution, and this
was perhaps another reason for the schism. Shiites and Sunnis have historically digressed from one
another, often militarily so, over just which Muslim leaders have been blessed
from Allah with the ability to lead.
One thing that distinctly marks the Iran-Iraq war,
aside from the fact that Iraq was unsuccessful in its attempt to take over
Iran, is the method with which the war was undertaken. Contemporary war options, like bombing
military installations or targeting leaders were not always the norm. Instead, warfare similar to that used,
and later condemned as unhumanitarian, in World War I was employed—primitive
trench warfare; stationary, nonadvancing frontlines; and the widespread use of
mustard gas—a lethal gas that causes slow, painful death when inhaled. These Muslims, in order to advance
their political agenda, used archaic methods of warfare deemed ineffective and
unsafe for humanity in their quest.
The result was an extremely bloody and death-strewn war that resulted,
net-net, in little or no change in global Muslim leadership, contrary to the
goal.
Now, I am not here condemning Muslims as the only
group of people on Earth fighting unjust, unsuccessful wars. But recent history shows some
particularly fervent examples of Muslim unrest leading to some particularly
disastrous consequences. Al-Queda,
in particular, led by Osama bin Laden, is perhaps the most memorable group in
recent times to wage a bloody war on its enemy—in this case capitalists not of
his personal religious persuasion.
He proceeded to blow up embassies around the world, and learned to
hijack airlines leading to the September 11, 2001 attacks against the United
States. Bin Laden was not always
widely accepted in Muslim circles as a leader, however, despite his somewhat
magnanimous self-claims. In fact,
he was disowned by his Saudi family and chased from Saudi Arabia for his
extremist beliefs. But his beliefs
that the world must abide by his personal interpretations of Sharia (Muslim
law), and that the world must be destroyed if they did not adhere to his
particular interpretation of Islamic holiness grew, and he is now a wanted war
criminal as a terrorist in many countries.
And the list of unjust Muslim leaders goes on. January 2011’s uprising against the
Muslim Tunisian government was due mainly to unrest due to the perpetuation of
poverty-like conditions among the Tunisian people. Hosni Mubarak, in Egypt, faced demands to leave office for
similar reasons, despite amassing a personal fortune amounting by same
estimates to be over seventy billion U.S. dollars. And the Civil War in Libya between Colonel Qadhafi’s army
and warring rebel fighters wanting better conditions in the oil-rich country
reeks of improper allocation of funds by the illustrious leader, despite his
public apologies for the airline hijackings in the 1980’s. The nation of Iraq also invaded Kuwait
in 1990, probably for its vast oil reserves, requiring a United States-led
coalition of thirty-four nations to defend its freedom. The United States’ War in Iraq began in
2003 after Saddam Hussein could not convince the West that he did not harbor
weapons of mass destruction, and subsequently continued until recent times,
largely to keep Sunnis and Shiites within its borders from civil war and
infighting for control.
All this unrest and unjust ruling in the Muslim world
is indeed unnerving. Peaceful
citizens around the world must fear hostilities and slighting by those claiming
to be learned scholars of Islam or simply accomplices of Allah’s will. But what gives so many Muslims this
fervor? What is it in them that
allows them to be such messengers of hatred—such arbiters of ill will? Is there something within Islam itself,
or in those operating outside the rules of Islam that will allow a more
peaceful co-existence of now warring and hostile factions? Is there a way for Muslims to find war
an unnecessary way to achieve peaceful means?
What I am trying to say here is that most of the war
in the Middle East is due to two factors: one is discontent—many Arabs live in
near poverty and are not helped much economically by their government. Economic opportunity in the form of
favorable banking practices is difficult in Muslim countries due to
prohibitions under Sharia (Islamic law) on charging interest. And even in countries with what would
seem to be by Western standards as favorable conditions—oil, Mediterranean
coastline, education, good job opportunities in industries not related to oil,
still pale by comparison to other major world economies such as those of the
United States, Russia, China, Japan, and in Europe. The recent revolt in Tunisia was started by a
college-educated street vendor who was so disenchanted with future career
prospects in his country, despite his college education, that he burned himself
to death in protest. In Egypt and
Libya, the uprisings were to a large part due to citizen unrest at economic
conditions provided by their government.
Citizens saw their lives as underprivileged, despite the massive amounts
of wealth accumulated by their respective governments, and saw the desire to
oust their leaders by military means.
This discontent was taken to extremism in the case of bin Laden and the
Taliban, where the advantages of American capitalism were seen as evil by the
largely peasant-filled al-Queda and Taliban where, I would argue, common
jealousy drove these rebels to wage war on well-to-dos. This action was condemned by most
people in the First World.
The second factor I believe is causing war in the
Middle East is failed notions of Jihad, or Holy War. Jihad has many interpretations, greater and lesser, with the
most common translations being either “struggle” or “holy war”. The concept is so important in Islam
that some Muslim scholars have named it “The Sixth Pillar of Islam”, up there
in importance with things like daily praying, observation of Ramadan, and
pilgrimage to Mecca. Jihad is the
passionate pursuit of one’s goals, and in many cases, this action means death
to non-Muslims in order to foster the supremacy of the Islamic faith. Those who are non-Muslim are simply
disdained by those who are. But
what can be salvaged from militaristic Jihad? How can a Muslim embrace this holy concept without feeling
the need to wage war on those with whom s/he may disagree?
Part of
this stemming problem is that Islam is largely alone among world religions in
condoning violence among nonbelievers.
And many Muslims themselves properly don’t believe war is an option for
those that do not believe or are not themselves Muslim. Many see Jihad, if indeed that word is
to be used at all, to mean a striving for perfection in one’s own self or in
one’s own community—to building the tenets of strong faith within one’s social
circle for the glory of serving God.
This more tacit solution coincides more with Christian teachings, thought
by Muslims to be the words of the prophet Jesus Christ, where, although Christ
claims to be “the only way to the one true God,” he also more peacefully
advocated “treating one’s neighbor as oneself” and preached things like the
parable of the Good Samaritan—a story where a stray traveler helps another out
of the goodness of his heart, after that person had been beaten by
thieves. The Buddha also, taught
compassion and loving kindness to all humanity. He said in one of his sermons, “Teach this triple truth to
all: A generous heart, kind speech, and a life of service and compassion are
the things which renew humanity.”
This type of pacifistic theorizing is a mark interpreted by many
scholars to intimate that negotiations and concessions in order to bring about
a peaceful agreement are far superior to waging war to get one’s way.
[i] And the pursuit of peace is often cited
as one of the highest goals of Judaism.
The Torah states “When approaching a town to attack it, first offer them
peace.”
[ii] Most world religions do not condone
violence.
So, this seemingly obvious truth then leads to the
question, if indeed some sort of Jihad is to be quintessential to a Muslim’s
faith, what form is that Jihad to take?
And what precautions should a Muslim take in attempting to convert
another to Islam, with death being assumed to be an immediate end if that
person does not convert. Peaceful
coexistence between Muslims and non-Muslims, according to public perceptions
broadcast in the media, Arab and otherwise, and also via the internet, seems to
be more the norm than the exception.
The prophet Muhammed appeared on Earth in a time and place where
communication among the world’s peoples was not a given as it is today. There was no radio, no television, no
internet, no electricity at all.
It is indeed theoretically possible that Muhammed’s doctrinal Qu’ran is
historically and sociologically seated in unrest, rather than universal. Muhammed was born a desert peasant on
the Arabian peninsula at a time when fertile land ownership was a true sign of
wealth. The warring words of the
Quran are quite possibly a reaction to this power imbalance—a way for him
personally to come to terms with wealth inequality within his own homeland. It’s possible that his own sense of
right and wrong were slurred by a pressing urge to usurp control of
wealth-producing areas to take for his own benefit. By this theory, he would
have then passed down his feelings of the need for war to make a more fair
society for himself to his followers through his notations in writing the
Quran. This paradigm of social
interaction has been set down frequently in the twentieth century.
[iii] Much of the rest of the world these
days has advanced significantly beyond the supreme arrogance of beliefs assumed
by the Qu’ran to be dogma in many fields
[iv],
including peace studies, human rights, women’s rights, and the rights of
prisoners. Even some Muslim
scholars themselves have envisioned a more defensive view of Jihad that does
not call to necessity an armed attack against one’s enemies, and claims a view
of the Qu’ran that allows Muslims to make peace with their adversaries, if the
adversaries should choose to do so, and emphasizes the rights of Muslims to
remain neutral in international conflicts.
[v][vi] We are also at a point in world history
where a complete military Jihad by Muslims seems impossible because of the
military strength of too many non-Muslim countries. For Muslims to attempt Jihad against the world with things
like Star Wars, trillion dollar defense budgets, alliances like NATO, SEATO,
and the UN would be suicide—an end to the Islamic faith as we know it. So, if “Holy War” is not an adequate
and realistic interpretation for Jihad today, how can the people of the world
accept a working definition for Jihad, and how can war in its essence be
prevented in Muslim nations?
Jihad in its essence can also mean striving or
struggling—for the piety of oneself and, if possible, for others. A Muslim must purify him/herself for
Allah and work against evil to achieve the ultimate sanctity. Purification is a recurring theme in
Islam, and much of the tenets of practicing the faith center around this
activity. Purification according
to the Qu’ran is the act of making oneself pious and in service to Allah-the
one God. Purification does not
come automatically, and, although Allah is too glorious to behold or
comprehend, his will for the people outlined in the Qu’ran is to follow basic
rules of sanctity and reverence to Him.
[vii] Qur’anic Muslims are expected to
observe the Five Pillars of Islam in a show of respect and obedience to
Allah. They are expected to accept
the message of Mohammed as the voice of the one true God, pray five times a
day, observe fasting practice during the holy month of Ramadan, give alms
adding up to 2.5% of their income to the poor or needy, and make a pilgrimage
to Mecca, the birthplace of the prophet Muhammed, at least once in their
lifetime. These acts are meant to
bring the Muslim closer to God and show the individual’s reverence for the
religion of Islam. However, it is
striving for these perfections, against transgression, that seems to cause
hostility problems in many Muslims.
I must take a moment to pause here, and emphasize that
what I am doing, is not making a point that I think Muslims are inherently
hostile. In contrast, I personally
believe the tenets of the faith of Islam to make many Muslims better people and
strengthen both their place and the place of others they contact in the world. Sociologically identifying with a faith
has been shown by many researchers to be a source of individual and group
strength.
[viii] And certainly, the Islamic commandment
to give alms to the less fortunate is an edict to be lauded in and of
itself. But the puzzle concerning
what can be done to foster interfaith harmony, if that is indeed what it will
take, remains aloof.
What seems to be missing most in Islamic theology, is
not a plan for sanctity, but rather is an adequate definition of the term
“enemy”. While much is done within
the context of ally, namely self-purification, striving to serve Allah,
determination of leaders, propagation of wishes of peace towards others in the
community, etc., mainstream Islam is still much like fundamentalist
Christianity in thinking that anyone who does not adhere to the specific
religious beliefs one holds oneself must be therefore inherently flawed or evil
and must be corrected. Although
there are digressers, most practitioners of mainstream Buddhism, Hinduism, and
Unitarian Universalism and other religions by and large do not hold such
beliefs about outsiders. Is Islam
schizophrenic? Are Jihadist
Muslims so averse to the thoughts of others that they disdain them ab orige, voting instead for their own minority opinions, no
matter the dialogue, as supreme?
Certainly there must be a more conducive way to world peace than
stepping over anyone who does not fundamentally agree with another; than
striving to kill those whose ideology of harmony differs from one’s own.
I believe a significant flaw in Islamic thought to be
that it deems itself timeless, and therefore not subject to interpretation or
modernization. Islam was not the
first world religion. It was not
even the second, or third, or even fourth. Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, and most Asian
religions, among others, all predate it with their own systems of beliefs,
theologies, and rules. Muhammed
denounced all these faiths in his incarnation and said all must follow Allah
(the one true monotheistic God) in the context of the Muslim faith or be deemed
evil. Is this the message of a
peaceful God? What of the devout
practitioner of another faith?
What of the follower of another path to righteousness, purity,
authority, enlightenment, and holisticism? Is anger at one’s enemies the goal—as stated by Muhammed and
others? Is this warring anger true
holiness of self? Is the rugged
independence of spirit advocated by the Qu’ran necessarily intolerant of
others’ independence? If peace
(Ara.
salam) is that which is
shared by fellow Muslims, why is peace not extended to others of different
faiths? For the Qur’an states that
forgiveness breeds gratitude.
[ix] What gave Mohammed the right to trump
millennia of world religion with one book advocating, among other things, war
and painful death to those who disagree?
I should digress. I am not here trying to say that Muslims are evil, or that
Islam has no redeeming values. I
believe peaceful Muslims everywhere in the West are discriminated against
regularly and that that should change.
As an American, I believe in many things like freedom of speech, freedom
of religion, and the like; and I believe Muslims should be as tolerant as
that. Worshipping as one pleases
is tantamount to any exercise in freedom, and practicing peace and goodwill to
others, I believe, is an excellent value to have. Wanting others to follow one’s own way of thought,
institutionalized or not, I believe is also an acceptable practice; however needing this seems flawed. We cannot live peacefully ourselves under threats to follow
a militaristic creed. Muslims and
others must accept anyone of righteous nature as true; and people everywhere
should not discriminate against peaceful, independent Muslims. There exists a vicious circle of hatred
and envy where neither side will cooperate, and those who voice freedom and
unity are not always heard.
Part of the problem seems to be what has been termed
“extremism.” Extremism in this
case is taking one’s own personal beliefs, whether religious or otherwise, and
forcing them on others, often with violent overtones. What differentiates extremism from other forms of religious
practice is that it is intolerant, and claims that one’s own views are so
correct that they must be forced on others at all costs. There are many examples of religious
extremism throughout history: the Crusades, World War II, recent activity of
al-Queda. The problem, I believe,
is that society and the world at large have outgrown extremism—have outgrown
the necessity to expand one’s sphere of influence militarily. We have turned to an era of
understanding—of tolerance—and of multiculturalism—for as Charles Taylor has
philosophized, “a crucial feature of human life is its fundamentally dialogic
character.”
[x] Many American educational institutions
have turned to courses in multiculturalism to promote ideas of peace and
understanding—believing that a working knowledge of different facets of world
culture will eventually lead to an ethos of tolerance instead of dissension and
fighting. This paradigm has easily
become dominant philosophy in Western countries—the ones who provide the most
international assistance and support when needed. It is a platform for respect, which seems to be found in all
successful world cultures.
Leadership without respect can lead to disaster.
Many of the problems in the Arab world today, namely
Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya, although not due per se to religious extremism, seem to be due to something
similar. In all three instances,
it is an unrest against the
government leadership that led to the dissent—riots, war, etc. And in all three instances, I believe,
the main problem with the leadership being protested was a disrespect for the
working classes. The first recent
uprising, in Tunisia, was started by a college-educated street vendor,
distressed at the economic opportunities afforded to college graduates. He burned himself to death in protest
of the ignorance he perceived the government to have for national affairs. Tunisia, despite having the best
educational opportunities in North Africa, and moderate economic opportunity,
has a substantial percentage of its population living in subsistence-level
poverty, unable to afford even a small vacation.
The case of Egypt saw an obviously corrupt leader
crumble under popular pressure.
For years during his rule, Mubarak was siphoning money from his
government, amassing one of the highest government wealth stores in the history
of world government—a fortune of almost seventy billion dollars. Although Egypt boasts one of the most
successful equity-driven economies in the region, almost 50% of Egyptians are
quite poor.
[xi] Despite a great deal of investment on
behalf of the government to the private sector, subsistence-level poverty
continues rampant. And Qadhafi in
Libya seemed to be playing unavailable to his populace. Despite decades of oil growth beginning
around the 1960’s
[xii], most of
the past twenty years or so has been spent outsourcing Libya’s jobs to
college-educated professionals from other countries, with very little
investment in domestic infrastructure.
He has been very quiet about advancements in world culture since
apologizing for the airline hijackings of the 1980’s; and the poverty and
joblessness in his country, coupled with rapidly rising import prices, I would
argue, led ultimately to the civil war now taking place.
The problems coming to the surface in the unrest in
Arabia now seem to stem from the government paying little attention to the
needs of the common people. Is
this fact due to simple oversight?
This is a kind way to put it, but corruption, mismanagement, and
extremist elitism lead me to point another, albeit wary, finger. I would like to pose a question. Are the revolts against Arab/Muslim
leadership happening today due to arrogance and a form of greater Jihad in
purifying oneself at the detriment of others? What role do self-purification and the casting of a blind
eye, rather than warfare, at the plight of the poor play in fostering uprisings
in a population religiously trained to fight. There appears to be another type of vicious cycle going on—Jihad
versus Jihad; piety versus piety; and an oversight of popular need to the needs
of the rulers. Is this
self-independence of financial enterprise the type of rule that Allah intended
in the seventh century? What can
be done to quell Arab unrest, and how will this add to reducing general
prejudice against Muslims in the West?
I believe the solution to this complex problem is
several fold and entails new views on economics. First, investment in Arab and African business should remain
strong. Much advancement in things
like national GDP, equitable companies—whether public or private, and workable
exports has been made in the past fifty years and this should be
continued. There is a great deal
of modernity in many Arab cities, and a great deal of wealth. Second, governments should remain
strong. It is strong leadership
that has given these countries the foot in the world they need to remain
self-sufficient. In countries
where strong government is difficult, such as many nations in sub-Saharan
Africa, sound steps should be taken, and international cooperation sought in
achieving workable solutions to many of their problems. And third, given the unrest of the
working classes in many of these countries, quite poor by American standards, a
better system of government entitlements and assistance must be made to improve
standards of living and quell unrest at those born into advantage or other
system of benefit. Despite
advancements in education and business, I believe there are still too many
difficulties in extending these advancements to the populace. Government wealth should be shared in
some type of mutually beneficial system to the working class. Discontent, in the vast majority of
cases, seems to be due to economics, more than ideology, and concessions should
be made that are realistic and profound.
Distributing wealth more evenly, I believe, would satisfy much of the
discontent now found throughout warring parts of Arabia. Again, I believe that, where necessary,
advice from First World countries can contribute to this success.
Peace is never easy to implement, and is always
easier to say in theory than to actually put into practice. In this paper, I have accented the term
“respect”, and I believe this needs to be reiterated. Everyone has their own beliefs and their own systems of
understanding, and it must be undertaken that the sane ones, the vast majority
of cases I believe, should be granted their autonomy within the modern concept
of nation. Those that are ignored
will always be discontent, and in too many nations, this discontent has now led
to violence the world does not need.
Arrogance and self-service among leaders should be kept in check, and
quality circumspection among those in charge should be valued highly. I believe these reforms will not
necessarily happen overnight, but are goals which should be striven for by all
world economies. The way to safe
self-sufficiency is not always easy, but must happen to keep order and promote
peace throughout the nations of the world. The key to easing so much unrest is in being watchful and
knowledgeable of the needs of others and in responding to those needs. Only then, will we be able to be fully
human.
[i] Ure, James,
“Interview with an American Buddhist Soldier Serving in Afghanistan,” internet
blog 2/9/11, http://thebuddhistblog.blogspot.com.
[iii] Berger,
Peter L., and Luckmann, Thomas,
The Social Construction of Reality: A
Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge,
(Garden City, New York, Anchor Books, 1966)
[iv]beginning
with Kant, Imanuel,
Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten, in Kants Gesammelte Schriften vol. IV, (Berlin, Preßischen Akademie der Wissenschaften,
1785, 1902)
[v] Mustansir
Mir,
Some Logical Fallacies Dealt with In the Qur’an, (Stratford, CT, Renaissance, April 1995)
[vi] Mustansir
Mir, “Jihad in Islam” in Hadia Dajami-Shakeel and Ronald A. Messier, eds.,
The
Jihad and Its Times (Ann Arbor, Michigan:
University of Michigan Center for Near Eastern and North African Studies,
1991).
[viii]
Beit-Hallahmi, B.,
Prolegomena to the Psychological Study of Religion, (Lewisburg, Pennsylvania: Bucknell University
Press, 1989)
[x] Taylor,
Charles, “The Politics of Recognition” in
Multiculturalism (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994),
p. 32
[xi] Nawar,
Abdel-Hameed,
From Marina to Kom-Ombo: A Note on Poverty in Egypt, (Cairo, Egypt, Cairo University, manuscript, 2007)
[xii]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Libya
