Tawhid is a semi-weekly series on the Middle East, Islamic jurisprudence, and Islamic theology. The word "tawhid" (TAW-heed) roughly translates to "unity" or "oneness".
----------------------------------------
We The People: The Democratic Dilemma in the Middle East, Part IIOvercoming anti-West sentiments will not be the sole challenge facing Middle Eastern democracies in the near and distant future. The Islamic world is currently struggling from Morocco to Malaysia on how to respond to globalization. Similar to the Christian movement called Fundamentalism in the early 20th century, many Muslims are resistant to the current direction of modern life. Technological, social, and cultural advancements are viewed to be temptations and are held to be responsible for the moral degradation of society. Accepting globalization, the Internet, and international agreements with non-Muslims are tantamount to heretical actions. Any Muslim that takes part in such activities is deemed a "bad Muslim" or at it's extreme, an apostate. The movement within Islam to return to the original
umma - Muhammad's first nation based out of Yathrib/Medina - and to exemplify the lifestyle of the Prophet is called salafism.
The vast majority of violent and extremist Islamists - "terrorists" in the American lexicon - are salafists; the vast majority of Islamists and salafists are also adherents of the Wahhabi dogma within Sunni Islam. Wahhabism is an 18th century religious reform movement - or sect, depending on whom you ask - started by Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab in 18th century Arabia. Wahhabism is a very conservative sect/school of thought; Wahhabism has been the religious doctrine of Saudi Arabia well before it was established as a sovereign nation as it is the doctrine espoused by the House of Saud. It is now the doctrine followed by most of the Arabian Peninsula and some of Africa. Given the amount of money available to the Saudi family, Wahhabism's proliferation - even to America - has been vast in the last century.
The doctrine and beliefs of Wahhabism vis-à-vis "mainstream" Sunnism is well-documented and a topic at the heart of many books and articles. I won't go into it here, but suffice it to say that Wahhabism may be the wealthiest
madhhab (school of thought), ultra-conservative, and the source of more media attention, it is not the only option available to Muslim scholars in their choice of law. The dilemma in allowing Middle Eastern countries to democratically elect their governments is rooted in the popularity of salafism in the Muslim world. The example par excellence is Palestine.
In 2005, the Palestinian people overwhelmingly elected candidates supported by Hamas. Hamas, much like Hizbollah and the Muslim Brotherhood, have a social outreach arm in conjunction with the more well known militant wing. Fatah, the other controlling political party in Palestine, is known for looking after itself and it's supporters rather than the families in refugee camps. Hamas, Hizbollah, and the Muslim Brotherhood maintain grassroots support through their social welfare programs. However, it is their militant wings that bring the ire of the international community. With international ire comes sanctions and refusals to open diplomatic channels. When Hamas became a major player in Palestinian policy the United States and other Western countries immediately cut funding, enacted sanctions, and refused to even talk with the Palestinian government because of Hamas' terrorist activity. Israel immediately ceased paying taxes to Palestine as well. The "will of people" lead their country to be ostracized from the international community, and more importantly it prohibited them from receiving vital funds and supplies.
The West fears that if an Islamist group or party were to gain control of a sovereign nation that another Khomeini-lead Iran or Taliban-run Afghanistan will emerge. A nation that is anti-West and will support terrorist activities against Western governments. Their concerns are not unwarranted as Hizbollah's continued existence is largely dependant upon Iran and Syria's funding. The Taliban ran an isolationist government and harboured al-Qaeda as the hid from the United States after their terrorist attacks in the mid-nineties.
The great dilemma becomes whether or not we "allow" the people of the Middle East to choose their own governments. If the purpose of installing democracy in the Middle East is to promote greater connectedness and increase regional economic growth and stability, then isn't it imperative to install democratic governments in the Middle East - that is, true democracies? Governments elected by the people, and for the people; governments based on the values of the people electing the officials. Doesn't installing more puppet governments or cooking-cutter Western prototype governments and constitutions stall true democracy in the Middle East? Shouldn't the bastions of democracy in the West allow the Middle East to experiment with democracy on their own terms just as we did? We've been trying to figure out how to run our government for over 200 years. However, I am not suggesting we treat the Middle East as some sort of pet ant colony, sectioned off from the world as we watch them develop or fail. Obviously geo-political and military policies must be in place to ensure regional and global stability while the Middle Eastern countries determine how to integrate Islamic society and jurisprudence with 21st century technology and international relations.
Allowing the people to elect Islamist candidates may not be as bad in the long-term as predicted by some doomsday naysayers. Salafist - even militant - groups may hold the public's heart as a viable and welcome alternative to a corrupt government currently in power. It's easy to criticize the government from the outside. However, once the salafists take power they now become responsible for running a nation. They're now required to have solutions to the public's plight. If economic stability does not come forthwith, then popular support for their socio-political agenda will fail. They too will be considered no better than their predecessor. Hamas' recent failure as a legitimate party is prime example; however, their recent coup is also a prime example of what may happen when diplomacy fails. If an Islamist government refuses to interact with non-believers, then they will quickly find themselves isolated in the global community and economically moribund. The best policy with respect to extremist Islamism and salafism may be to step back, allow it to gain power, and then fail spectactulary. The final blow to Communism was internal systematic failure, not victory on a philosophical battlefield.
There is no easy answer. However, there are steps that need to be taken in order to ensure positive development.
1) Promote grassroots reform through Muslim voices not exclusively Western talking heads and pro-Western expatriates. Education and reform from within - Muslim voices - will hold more legitimacy. Their is a burgeoning population of Euro-Muslims that have experienced the benefits of Western government and society, while at the same time are rooted in their own religious traditions.
2) The proliferation of Salafist and Wahhabist dogma out of Saudi Arabia must be addressed directly. We cannot allow our money for petroleum to promote and finance terrorism. The more money we give Saudi Arabia the more money we're giving to anti-West sentiment and resistance to Western-style governments
3) Our presentation of democracy must be done in Islamic terms/paradigms. Islam in the Middle East isn't the same as religion in the West; there is no division between public and private life. Islamic law and Islamic values play a vital role in politics, culture, and everyday life. We must talk to Musliims with terms and values that are meaningful to them. The tools to communicate to the majority of the Middle East through Islamic terms exists. The more we can distance policies and philosophies from Western roots the more viable they will become.
4) We must look to the golden rule: Treat others as you wish to be treated. It's time to start treating Middle Easterners as our equals. If we wouldn't allow ourselves to be ruled by corrupt leaders, why do we continue to trade with and invest in governments that are horribly corrupt and oppressive? Muslims and Middle Easterners are not inherently inferior to the West; they don't enjoy living in poverty any more than we do.
Ultimately, the battle between salafism and mainstream Islam is not the West's battle. Unfortunately, the Middle East doesn't exist in a bubble. Our best option is to encourage democratic and economic growth in the region that benefits the majority of the population instead of a select and corrupt few. Islam is not inherently incompatible with democracy, the first step is getting the
umma to come to that realization on their own. Our efforts - however benevolent they may be - will always fail if salafists can easily turn the people against it merely because it is "Western."
