Bridging the chasm between the West and the Muslim world

Bridging the chasm between the West and the Muslim world
Anwar Ibrahim, Malaysiakini, Mar 22, 2005

More than a decade ago, at a gathering of eminent Christian, Jewish and Muslim scholars and leaders at the Georgetown University in Washington, I said that even though the civilising mission of the West had passed, it had been replaced by a new mission.

This was the mission of democratisation, one that was being pursued not only with convincing intellectual argumentation, but was backed by the mightiest firepower known in human history.

When I said that, little did I know that this firepower was eventually to be met with an even greater power, more insidious, more frightening. This is the power of hate, extreme hate that manifested itself in a form never seen before.

Unlike others, I received news about the 9/11 tragedy in trickles through (Sungei Buloh) prison guards. When the full picture finally unfolded, the magnitude and immensity of the violence was so terrifying that left me completely dumbstruck.

It was this that prompted me, a week later, to write a piece for Time magazine, entitled ‘Who Hijacked Islam?’

Those who had already made up their minds about Islam being a religion for fanatics and fundamentalists criticised the essay as being way too soft. Those who were generally anti-West or more particularly anti-Bush condemned the article as a fine example of sucking up to the Americans.

Tonight, I would like to take a moment to go beyond the stereotypes and examine the common ground that we share. To begin with, I believe we all share the quest for peace, justice and truth. I believe we share the view that the question is not who is right and who is wrong, but what is right and what is wrong.

The question is not whether communities or indeed civilizations will clash, but whether communities, nations or civilisations ought to clash. Indeed, the fundamental question is how we can realize this universal quest for justice, peace and truth.

Seeking the middle path Islam enjoins Muslims to choose the middle path when conducting their affairs. This principle of moderation is the key, indeed the master key for Muslims throughout the world, to live in peace and harmony not only with people of other religions but also among themselves.

It may sound like a cliché, but this principle of mutual toleration and respect cannot be overemphasised. I would regard it as the sine qua non to peaceful co-existence among people in a world with such a diversity of cultures, religious beliefs and practices, and languages.

It was this approach, for instance, which had been used for hundreds of years by Muslims in Southeast Asia living in multi-cultural and multi-religious societies. Instead of clinging on dogmatically to inflexible doctrines or living in isolation from other communities, Muslims in Southeast Asia took the pragmatic approach in social, economic
and political life.

Islam’s tradition of tolerance, of course, is not confined to Southeast Asia. In AD 529, Emperor Justinian ordered the closure of the great Academy that had been established by Plato. Because of Justinian’s intolerance of religions other than Christianity, Europe descended into the Dark Ages.

Freedom of choice

A century thereafter, Islam was established and as it spread its wings far and wide, it was marked by a cardinal principle, that is, the freedom of choice. For the first 200 years after the advent of Islam, there existed more than 100 schools of law to give the religion the much needed critical mass for cultural and political dynamics to flourish.

The coming of Islam improved the position of the Nestorian and Monophysite Christians who had been subjected to severe disabilities under Byzantine rule. Conversely, Islam developed in a largely Judeo-Christian environment with Jewish and Christian scholars actively participating in the transmission of Greek thought into Arabic.

And as the religion spread in later years, the land of Islam was the preferred refuge for Jews and other persecuted communities. For example, we know that the greatest figure of medieval Judaism, Musa ibn Maymun (Maimonides), found a freer environment in Cairo in the 12th Century under Muslim rule than in the Andalus under Christian rule. Maimonides’
life and thought remain to this day a living testimony to the easy relations between Jews and Muslims in the Egypt of his time.

The Islam of the Prophet Muhammad, therefore, is not the Islam of those who insist that there is only one interpretation of the Quran and the Sunnah and that others who do not follow their way are either infidels or apostates; it is not the Islam of extremists, who hold no truck with alternative views about attire, ritualistic practices or principles of
doctrine. Islam is not the religion of terrorists, who blow up buildings killing innocent women and children. Islam is not totalitarian. It is democratic.

We know that the vast majority of Muslims in the world largely reject the doctrines of violence and hatred preached by extremist groups. It is a rejection borne out by a deep-seated aversion to the senseless slaughter of innocent lives, an aversion to any doctrine which claims that followers of other religions have a lesser right to the sanctity of life, an aversion borne out by the natural dignity of man. Terrorist attacks in the name of Islam therefore constitute the hijacking of Islam.

It is an insidious usurpation of the legitimacy of religion. Yet why has Islamic extremism begun to assert itself as a conspicuous force not just in the Middle East, but in other parts of the Muslim world?

History has shown that people who have been politically marginalised will eventually revolt against their oppressor. The Arab-Israeli conflict is a case in point. If the dispossessed Palestinians continue to see their condition as a result of some covert plans to deprive them of their homeland, then suicide bombers will continue to grow in numbers. The answer is not more firepower or more targeted killings.

Today’s preoccupation with the war on terror is seen by many as merely a military war to hunt down terrorists and bring them to justice. But I believe that in the long run, it is a war of ideas. The perimeters and co-ordinates of this larger battlefield are not easy to define as there is considerable overlapping.

On the one hand there is modernity and democracy; on the other there is fundamentalism and autocracy. Criss-crossing these two fronts are socio-economic progress, poverty; and dispossession. Yet while we agree that terrorism is to be condemned, we ought to realise that it cannot be answered merely by the use of force, however potent it may be.

In this regard, declarations by superpowers that they seek a just and peaceful world beyond the war on terror can only be seen as pious platitudes if they wage this battle only with warships and fighter jets, riding roughshod over world opinion. The arrogance of power will never win the hearts of the people though it may subjugate them.

It will also be sheer hypocrisy if, while fighting in the name of democracy, these same powers continue to condone the excesses of autocratic regimes or remain silent to the blatant abuses of power committed by them.

Under such circumstances, the sense of injustice overpowers the fruits of freedom. This should in no way be interpreted as a call to weaken the resolve against terrorism. It is, instead, a warning against a resort to draconian legislation, for it will be counter-productive.

Creation of civil society

To bridge the gap, we must work towards the creation of a civil society. Some in the name of Asian values will contend that economic development must precede freedom and democracy. This view, of course, has been debunked by Nobel laureate Amartya Sen.

Indonesia, the largest Muslim nation in the world, is testimony to this. She braved the gale of creative destruction unleashed by the East Asian financial crisis and has come out of it a new nation secured by the institutions of freedom and democracy.

Indeed, it is my conviction that post-Suharto (photo)Indonesia can serve as a model of democracy not only for the rest of the Muslim world, but even for the West. The press there is absolutely free and the fairness in the conduct of elections is unsurpassed even by some established democracies.

The phenomenal changes brought about through Reformasi should provide an enduring lesson on peaceful transition from autocracy to democracy. At the same time they helped create an environment highly conducive to economic growth by providing confidence to the business community and in the due process of law.

Yes, it is true that the preservation of social order is paramount in any society. Otherwise freedom will remain largely a philosophical construct. But this is not the same as saying that the need for order justifies dictatorships or tyrannies. In a true democracy, order must be maintained by the exercise of legitimate powers. Those wielding these powers must therefore be accountable to the very people whom they govern.

One of the best defences against the breeding of fundamentalist and extremist ideas is the free market. Now in saying this, I must add a serious caveat. And that is that free markets must come about in stages, moving away from the tendency of capitalist oppression towards social justice.

Free markets will unleash the forces of supply and demand and foster the growth of business, which is a good thing, good in more ways than one. I am a firm believer in the role of business as a catalyst towards reform. Sure, over the years we’ve seen enough corporate scandals brought about by the breakdown in corporate governance but on the back of this, we also see greater demand for transparency and ethical practices. It must mean an active determination to see that rogue corporations stop colluding with autocrats to rape the land and destroy the environment.

Over and above this, responsible governments, while promoting free markets, must ensure that certain priorities are not subject to the vagaries of supply and demand. Public funds may be spent towards the promotion of education and health care, and towards poverty eradication and the creation of humane living and working conditions.

The overriding objective should be the reduction of disparities between the rich and the poor. This will in turn reduce the likelihood of the growth of extremist tendencies. By fomenting growing discontent with the existing social order, poverty and social inequities are indeed fertile ground for the breeding of extremist groups.

Simplistic rationalisation

Seen in this light, is the current chasm that divides the Muslim world and the West a result of a clash of civilisations? In the aftermath of 9/11 there are those who, having warned of such a clash, now say “I told you so.” There are those who seek to portray this chasm as the harbinger towards the final showdown between Islam and the West.

This is not only a simplistic rationalisation but a dangerous doctrine. It is dangerous because it breeds paranoia and fuels hatred and suspicion. If accepted it means that unless one civilisation gives in to the other, then the world will be heading for some kind of Armageddon.

Unfortunately, these war drums are beaten by proponents on both sides of the divide. I’ve said it before and I am saying it again. We must engage ourselves in civilisational dialogue. Protracted mutual distrust and miscomprehension can only lead to greater confrontation.

The Muslim world must see the West beyond the blinkers of the Crusades, colonisation and Palestine. The West must see the Muslim world beyond menacing fundamentalists, suicide bombers and 9/11. Go beyond the stereotypes because each side is not as monolithic as we seem to think.

There may be more similarities between the West and the Muslim world than there are differences. But some glaring issues still continue to haunt the Muslim world where a large part continues to languish in poverty and live under the shadow of tyranny.

The authentic voice of Islam must therefore be the voice of moderation and tolerance. It must be the voice of love and understanding, a voice that calls out to all other faiths and communities. It must be the voice of learning and progress. This is the universalism of Islam, its values of justice, compassion and tolerance in a world that is yearning for a sense of direction and for genuine peace.

These are not mere ideals founded on mere fantasy. I dare say that in this part of the Muslim world, the prospects for economic prosperity and vibrancy, peace and security are indeed real, and the future is increasingly optimistic.


ANWAR IBRAHIM, former deputy prime minister, is currently senior associate member at St Antony’s College, Oxford University and concurrently visiting senior fellow at Johns Hopkins University. The above is a speech delivered at the Asia Society Spring Gala Dinner in Hong Kong on March 17 2005.