Nov 1, '13
COMMENT
The Islamic litmus test
By Hossein Askari
The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) boasts 57 self-proclaimed Muslim states (that includes the Palestinian territories). If the OIC embraces them, why then does the world label those in opposition to the rulers of these lands as "Islamists"? Who are the true believers or true Islamists - the rulers of these Muslim countries or the "Islamists" that oppose them? And why do the answers to these simple questions matter?
The prevalence of social and economic justice is the unquestionable litmus test for a society that professes adherence to Islam and its teachings. If the test were to be further detailed it would embrace respect for all humans as God's supreme creation to be protected from harm and injury; the absence of oppression, torture and arbitrary and abusive detention; modest lifestyles that excludes opulence and poverty; and relatively even opportunities for all members of society to develop as they choose - a level playing field conducive for everyone's success as long as they work hard.
The answer to our litmus test is evident. It is difficult to find social and economic justice in even one Muslim country. Malaysia and Turkey may fair best among the 57 but even they are far from being labeled as just. The Middle East as whole, especially those with abundant oil and gas reserves, may be the most unjust societies as the depletable wealth that belongs equally to everyone of every generation is being depleted with waste and unjust distribution as its mantra. Governance is oppressive in most Muslim countries, again with the Middle East leading the way.
In a number of oil-exporting countries the level of opulence among rulers and their cronies is obscene, while the poor cannot afford the essentials of a modest life. And in no Muslim country could it be asserted with a straight face that everyone has a good chance of developing with equal access to education, healthcare, shelter and nutrition.
If the rulers and the governance of nearly every Muslim country were unjust, then surely there would be Muslims in these countries that would rise up and demand change as everyone has a duty to resist oppression in Islam? Well there are opposition forces of different sorts in many Muslim countries - some are peaceful and are allowed to continue, others, though peaceful, are met with force and oppression, yet still others are violent.
For the Untied States and the rest of the West any opp osition to a client dictator is invariably labeled as "Islamist," no matter what maybe their religious commitment or social programs. In doing so, by design or by ignorance, Islam is represented as an evil militant force that is hostile to Western values and interests. Rulers, no matter how oppressive, must be supported in the name of stability and global peace.
Ironically, these so-called "Islamists" are invariably as bad, if not worse than the rulers they intend to replace; they portray Islam as an intolerant and warlike religion; they are oppressive; and like the rulers of today, are likely to rule by exclusion rather than inclusion, with little respect for the moral compass of justice. If they were to assume power, they would in all probability and in short order fail the litmus test.
So why do Middle East dictators label all those that oppose them as "Islamists"? Simple. It is a label that has gained traction in the West as representing intolerant, oppressive, and violent anti-Western Muslims. And most importantly, it is a label for protestors that normally garners absolute US support - American forces and bases, intelligence sharing, top of the line military equipment, and political backing - for ruling dictators, no matter how oppressive and egregious they may be.
At the same time, those vying to replace dictators take on an Islamic mantle in order to appeal to the deprived masses. They use as bait the one thing that all oppressed Muslims crave - justice. And with justice as the essential scaffolding of Islam, those in opposition use an Islamic cover to restore justice.
In short, neither those in power nor those vying for power pass the Islamic litmus test. They are both unjust and oppressive. They both use and abuse Islam as a cover to gain power and to enrich themselves and their cronies. In their quest, they solicit US and other Western support, which is especially forthcoming if accompanied by vast purchases of arms and other goods and services, large oil and engineering service contracts, and significant capital flows.
While this abusive foreign policy may have worked in the past, it is gradually becoming less and less tenable by the day. Rulers, opposition forces and Western politicians and media are misrepresenting Islam. This misrepresentation and the deprivation of millions of Muslims under oppressive rule are boiling with ominous consequences sure to follow for the Middle East and the world. It is only a matter of time.
It is time for a sea change in US policy towards the Muslim world and in particular towards the Muslim Middle East.
First, and foremost, the US must disengage from spreading a false interpretation of Islam that is spearheaded by both the oppressive rulers and the fanatics that oppose them. Neither side passes the litmus test. The US and the rest of the West must spread the message that they respect Islam and its teachings and recognize the fact that most rulers and many of those in opposition do not pass its litmus test.
Second, they will only support those who pass the litmus test. In particular, they will encourage all rulers in the Middle East to move towards representative governments and effective institutions as envisaged in Islam. Third, they will not push unnecessary military expenditures and other wasteful projects on the region. Fourth, they will adopt an international agreement to disclose the external financial holdings of all rulers, their families and close associates. Fifth, they would oppose all forms of aggression in the region, no matter who initiates or perpetuates them.
These steps, which must appear as daring and very uncomfortable for those who have become accustomed to the status quo, would in time pale in comparison to what the world might face if we continue down the well travelled path of yester years.
Hossein Askari is Professor of Business and International Affairs at the George Washington University.
(Copyright 2013 Hossein Askari)
__._,_.___
| Reply via web post | Reply to sender | Reply to group | Start a New Topic | Messages in this topic (1) |
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/batavia-news
to Subscribe via email :
batavia-news-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
----------------------------------------
VISIT Batavia News Blog
http://batavia-news-networks.blogspot.com/
----------------------------
You could be Earning Instant Cash Deposits
in the Next 30 Minutes
No harm to try - Please Click
http://tinyurl.com/bimagroup
--------------
to Subscribe via email :
batavia-news-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
----------------------------------------
VISIT Batavia News Blog
http://batavia-news-networks.blogspot.com/
----------------------------
You could be Earning Instant Cash Deposits
in the Next 30 Minutes
No harm to try - Please Click
http://tinyurl.com/bimagroup
--------------
.
__,_._,___
No comments:
Post a Comment