Since the last decade of the last century and particularly since 9/11, professional and column writings on fundamentalism, terrorism, and Islam have increased manifold. The US 9/11 Commission Report has dealt with Islam as a faith and traced its history back to the early days. With 1.4 billion strong followers worldwide and increasing, Islam is a world religion. It is the second largest faith in Europe and North America. Therefore it cannot be ignored.
But Islam is a misunderstood religion: misunderstood by Muslims and non-Muslims alike. For this misunderstanding, practising Muslims are largely to be blamed, because they have failed in their primary responsibility to represent Islam.
Islam cannot be equated with fundamentalism. The origin and growth of fundamentalism has been described by the New Encyclopedia Britannica thus: “[A] conservative movement in American Protestantism arising out of the millenarian movement of the 19th century and emphasizing as fundamental to Christianity the literal interpretation and absolute inerrancy of the Scriptures, Fundamentalism came into its own in the early 20th century in opposition to the modernist tendencies in American religious and secular life. The roots of fundamentalism are found in the history of the American millenarian movement.”
Certainly Islam has its own fundamental principles (which every religion has), and recognises the Bible to be a divine scripture (which in the last two millennia have been distorted beyond recognition), but the principles of Islam cannot be equated with Christianity (although there are similarities). In any event, and as its history suggests, fundamentalism is based on Christianity, and not on Islam. Islam is a very wide culture and flexible enough to accommodate new ideas, new thoughts, and new developments. It is therefore fundamentally wrong to equate Islam with fundamentalism.
Equally wrong is to equate Islam with extremism. Extremism means “being situated at the furthest possible point from the centre.” Islam stands for moderation and recommends moderation and balance in belief, in worship, in conduct, in international relations, in war and peace. Muslims are by definition moderate. “You have been created as a moderate nation to be a witness for truth for mankind.” (The Quran 2:143). In the long 23 years of the Prophet’s prophetic life he followed the middle path: the path of moderation. He went for the soft option, if one was available. He brought far-reaching changes in the social, political, cultural, economic, and spiritual life of Arabia but those changes were brought gradually and constitutionally.
One example: There were 360 idols in the House of God, the K’aba. From day one of his Prophethood, he had been preaching the oneness of God, and speaking uncompromisingly against those 360 false gods. His followers were prepared to do everything for him and for his cause. No sacrifice was too big. It was, therefore perfectly possible for him to organise a commando style attack on K’aba in an attempt to get rid of those gods. He was nowhere near that. On the contrary he prayed in the K’aba for long 13 years and waited for long 21 years — until the conquest of Makkah — when he, as head of the state, promulgated a decree to clear the House of God from false gods. Thus, finally, the cleansing was carried out constitutionally.
This is not to deny the existence of extremists in the name of Islam. There are. The July bombings in London and the August bombings in Bangladesh are recent examples. But extremists in the Muslim community are a very tiny minority and do not represent Islam. Any attempt, therefore, to equate Islam with extremism, and Islamists with extremists is wrong.
There are fears that if ‘Political Islam’ dominates a country — Bangladesh for example — it would cease to be a democracy. People will lose their right to dissent. And a theocratic state would be established “based on medieval legal and social practices and jurisprudence of Islam of yore.”
First, there is no such thing as “political Islam” and “spiritual Islam.” Islam is a complete code of life: a guidance for humanity. The fundamental objective of an Islamic government is to secure political, economic, and social justice for its citizens. For example, under the present Bangladesh constitution, it is perfectly possible to transform Bangladesh into a modern welfare state based on the principles and values of Islam, and hardly any amendment would be necessary.
Therefore these fears are unfounded and may have been based on the examples of certain states which practice autocracy in the name of Islam. Second, separation of powers, independence of judiciary, constitutional guarantee for fundamental rights, freedom of speech, and above all, rule of law, are the corner stones of an Islamic constitution. Those are not mere slogans. Those principles were practised by the Caliphs of Islam. In modern constitutions, the head of the state is normally given immunity from prosecution. But the rightly guided Caliphs did not enjoy such immunity.
The fourth Caliph Hazrat Ali (RA) appeared before a court of law in Medina and lost the suit for recovery of his shield from the defendant — a native Christian — because of insufficiency of evidence. Does it not conclusively prove the independence of the judiciary when the Chief Executive of a country lost his case for want of evidence in a proceedings in which he himself was a witness? Think of the Masdar Hossain case in Bangladesh: the Supreme Court’s 19-point directions for separation of the judiciary has remained unimplemented for long six years despite its own supervision and proceedings for contempt of court.
The most important fundamental right is the right to life. Was the second Caliph Hazrat Omar (RA) not on record to say, when famine broke out in Arabia — that if a child died on the bank of Euphrates for want of food, “I fear I may be held responsible before my Lord, the Almighty”? At dead of night was he not found to carry on his back food to the house of an old lady? Was he not prevented by an ordinary citizen from delivering Friday sermon before he explained to the members of the public the source of availability of cloths for his long gown? Are these not supreme examples of transparency and accountability? Was it not in his time that because of fewer crimes on the street, the primary duty of the police force was to ensure that traders use proper scales for measurement and camels were not overloaded? 1400 years ago even animal rights were protected, yet today the world is witnessing the worst violations of human rights in Abu Gharib and Guantanomo Bay.
It is often said Islamists want “one man one vote for one time only.” This allegation has no substance. Certainly there are certain differences between western democracy and Islamic democracy. Under the latter it would be beyond the powers of parliament to pass legislation to legalise single sex marriage, for example. But representative government is the basic feature of an Islamic democracy. No one has the right to lead unless he or she is an elected representative. During the time of the rightly guided Caliphs, democracy was not institutionalised, ballot boxes were not in use, but all four of them were elected through consultation.
It is said that Islam does not recognise the rights of women. The world knows very well that women got the right to vote in Germany in 1919, US 1920, UK 1928, France 1944, and Switzerland 1971. But in 7th century Arabia, women played an important role in the decision making process.
One incident was of highest constitutional importance. In a Friday sermon, the Second Caliph fixed the upper limit of the dower, arguing that this would stop the abuse of the system. One woman from the back bench protested: “Omar! This is beyond your jurisdiction. What has not been fixed by God himself, you have no power to do so.” Instantly Hazrat Omar accepted the protest and did not proceed any further. Without that lone protest by that woman — (history did not record her name because she was not notable) — the Caliph’s word would have been the law of the land enforceable through law courts.
This single incident speaks volumes about the rights of women in Islam, freedom of speech, women’s role in making legislations and state affairs and the executive’s eagerness to uphold the principles of rule of law and constitutionalism. Critics may tend to dismiss incidents like these as trivial and representing only the generous minds of the rulers of the day, but these are the constitutional precedents which would bind all Islamic governments for all time to come.

Musharraf’s Iran stand
Faruk Ashrafeen

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad phoned President General Pervez Musharraf on September 23 and thanked him for his unequivocal support for Iran in the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which to him is “emblematic of the friendly ties between the two countries. President Musharraf, in a meeting with the Iranian head in New York had expressed his unflinching opposition to the use of force against Iran, saying “Pakistan wants a peaceful solution of Iran’s nuclear issue.” This assurance was made in the context of US President George W. Bush’s warning when he made it clear that the use of force against Iran could not be ruled out.
The President reiterated that Pakistan was against the use of force because war would be devastating for regional peace and stability. He assured Ahmadinejad of Pakistan’s continued moral, diplomatic and social support to the Iranian government in all circumstances. Ahmadinejad’s phone call on Friday, according to Iranian news agency IRAN, was in connection with his New York meeting. He said he believed Islamabad’s stance had brightened prospects for cordial relations. In response to his Iranian counterpart, President Musharraf stressed stronger ties between the two nations and invited Ahmadinejad to visit Pakistan. He reiterated his stand that the Pakistani government and the people were against the use of force against any country.
On the eve of a key meeting of the UN atomic watchdog, Iran signalled it will never bow to Western demands to dismantle parts of its nuclear program and was ready to face the consequences. Addressing the UN General Assembly, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad launched a virulent attack on what he said was “nuclear apartheid” and said it was the United States that was guilty of nuclear proliferation. “If some try to impose their will on the Iranian people through resort to a language of force and threat with Iran, we will reconsider our entire approach to the nuclear issue,” he warned in a speech loaded with anti-Western rhetoric.
Ahmadinejad’s speech cemented Iran’s position of being totally at odds with Britain, France and Germany, which have been negotiating for the past two years and trying to use economic and security incentives to persuade Tehran to renounce its nuclear fuel cycle work. His much-anticipated proposals to solve the crisis merely reaffirmed Iran’s “right” to possess the full nuclear fuel cycle — a technology aimed at producing energy. He outlined four proposals, including an offer to “engage in serious partnership with private and public sectors of other countries in the implementation of the uranium-enrichment program in Iran.” He also said that the UN General Assembly should create an ad hoc committee to study and report on “possible practical measures and strategies for complete disarmament,” and notably raised the question of how “the Zionist regime” Israel came to acquire nuclear arms.
Apparently, similarly, in response to the American President’s recent threat to Tehran, when Mr Bush made it clear that the use of force against Iran could not be ruled out, Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz also announced that Pakistan will not support military action against Iran. As a matter of fact it was made clear by all parties in one way or another involved in Iran’s nuclear impasse that force was not to be used. Observers saw the EU-3 (UK, France and Germany), who had been negotiating with the Iranian government for the past two years, did not act wisely in breaking off its dialogue when Iran announced that it was resuming the conversion of uranium after a two-year break.
By calling off talks, and now, consequently, submitting a September 23 resolution that sets Iran up for referral to the UN Security Council, the EU-3 has abruptly slammed the door on a peaceful resolution of the crisis. The EU pushed for a vote within the next few days by board member nations of the IAEA. Observers believe that President Ahmadinejad’s telephonic talk with his Pakistani counterpart could be in that context.
The IAEA has been investigating the Iranian nuclear program since February 2003. It is however surprising why the US and EU have jumped to conclusions and are poised to taking the issue to the UN Security Council. In the Council, decisions are taken by a vote and generally the decision is primarily of a political nature. This would amount to declaring Iran guilty even before its guilt has been established beyond doubt. Iran insists that it has not violated the NPT since it has developed its nuclear program only for peaceful purposes to which it has a right and is not manufacturing nuclear weapons. As for the nuclear weapon states, they are bound to gradually eliminate their nuclear arms, which they have not even begun to do.
The West’s attempt to impose sanctions and use force against Iran is being seen as a move to preserve its monopoly on weapons of mass destruction by punishing other states which are merely suspected of moving on the nuclear road. Russia has already warned against a hard line stance and Pakistan’s decision to oppose any resort to the use of force against Iran strengthens the hands of those who favour a peaceful resolution of the problem. Iran waned the same day (September 23) that it would view the IAEA’s referring it to the Security Council as a “confrontation”.
Nevertheless, matters have been complicated by Iran’s offer of nuclear technology to other Muslim countries. While presumably such technology transfers would be under IAEA safeguards, the issue has long left the shores of legality and entered the rough waters of geopolitics. One thing is certain. Analysts suggest some compromise needs to be worked out and fast to prevent the situation from deteriorating further. The observers eulogize Pakistan’s stance in this regard and urge other member states to let the matter resolved amicably.
By the way India’s role in this regard stands out not only dubious rather amounting to betrayal against its ‘time-tested’ friendship with Tehran. In the meetings on the margin of UN General Assembly’s annual session in New York, India supported the moves against Tehran, saying it won’t allow Iran going nuclear. Eminent US think-tanks, Asian affairs experts and some of the Pentagon officials expressed their strongest suspicions over New Delhi’s role with reference to Iran. They are opposed to Washington’s friendship mongering with New Delhi and advise it to tread carefully while entering into defence or civilian nuclear deals with India.

Agenda for the next OIC Summit
Ahsan Iqbal

The conference of Muslim scholars and intellectuals — called by Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Abdullah to examine the conditions of the Ummah and seek the most effective solutions to the challenges facing it in the 21st century — closed recently without issuing any statement about its discussions. According to the report posted by the OIC Secretariat on its website, the discussions will be kept confidential. The report on the conference will be submitted to the leaders of the Ummah at their extraordinary summit to be held at Makkah before the end of this year. The summit’s aim is to explore ways and means of alleviating the present despair and despondency in the Islamic world.
It is good to engage intelligentsia and experts and elicit their ideas and thoughts for the agenda of the next OIC summit. Today, there are many challenges facing the Ummah. History will be watching the response of the Ummah with great interest because the way in which it respond will decide our fate as Muslims. When we speak of developing a response, we must take into consideration three factors which, if misjudged or overlooked, can either undermine or derail the whole effort. These factors are: Understanding the context of challenge, comprehending its nature and assessing internal capabilities. All three must be consistent and aligned with the proposed strategy if we are to make the correct response. As far as context is concerned, two important shifts have introduced new variations into the world economy and international politics.
The first was at the beginning of the 21st century and affected the economy. It was the dawn of an era of revolution in knowledge and information. Knowledge and information became the new drivers of wealth creation, progress and security. Because of this shift, superior human resources, knowledge creation capabilities and e-readiness are now of critical significance in the development of nations. The shift has forced even developed nations to radically redesign and rethink their socioeconomic ideas and processes.
The second shift took place in world politics on Sept. 11, 2001. US President George W. Bush announced and initiated a global war on terrorism and two Muslim nations, Afghanistan and Iraq, became its first victims. The threat of a US attack on Syria and/or Iran exists. Powerful forces in the West steadily portray Islam as a terrorist religion and thus, Muslims as terrorists. The “war on terror” is likely to remain unpredictable — at least until the end of the Bush administration. Clearly, any sincere response by the Ummah must take into careful consideration both of these significant challenges. Muslims account for 22 percent of the world’s population, numbering some 1.3 billion. This is greater than the combined populations of the US, Europe, and Japan. Muslim countries possess important economic resources such as oil, arable land coal, iron, uranium, tin, rubber, copper etc.