The return of the crusaders

Pages of history of the time are replete with details of battles fought between the Christians and the Muslims from the early eleventh century to the end of thirteenth century. These battles of European efforts to retake from the Muslims the city of Jerusalem, sacred to the Christians as the site of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, were known as the Crusades. The crusading movement later included the wars against the Pagans and dissident Christians which resulted in the expansion of Europe thus forming an early part of European colonisation and efforts by western Christendom to carry their culture and religion abroad. Though the western colonisation process was not specifically targeted against the Muslims because the "white men's burden" of civilising the uncivilised was an universal duty, the conflict between the two great religions and cultures continued throughout the passage of time. Each convinced of the moral superiority of its teachings aided by the fanatics hammered to break down each other's door to bring to the "prisoners" the nectar from the heaven.

Proponents of the dueling civilisations found prescience in historian Bernard Lewis' observation dating back to the nineties that the world has a "clash of civilisations" Islamic vs. Christian and post-Christian; rigid theocratic hierarchy vs. permissive secular modernism charged with, as Lewis perceived, the Muslim world's "downward spiral of hate and spite, rage and self-pity; poverty and oppression". It has been argued that the Muslim world is horrified by the fundamental debasement and moral corruption in western society, the west's tolerance of every sort of decadence fuelling Islamic contempt of a dissolute culture which effectively could be termed as a dereliction of duty by the church. This wavering and tenuous belief in Christianity by modernday westerners, it has been argued, resulted in the simultaneous assault by the followers of Marx and Freud -- one contending that evil springs from unjust social conditions created by unfair political systems while the other saw it as a product of psychological dysfunction. The strict adherence of Christian belief would disregard both contentions and lay the blame on endemic human nature -- the doctrine of original sin.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

They further claim that atheism and radical secularism are denial of essential human spirituality and that both Christianity and Islam claim exclusive universal moral sovereignty. Therefore modern Christianity despite adulteration and degradation added by its practioners (and thereby the faith having no degrading causal connection with degradation) is essentially in a state of clash with Islam.

Of late the term "Islamic fundamentalism" has gained global currency though as Professor John Esposito has noted on several occasions that the term "fundamentalism" originated in Christianity and can be misleading if used in equal measure for Saudi Arabia, Libya and Iran who have entirely divergent political systems. He sees in the resurgence of Islam deep malaise typified by widespread feeling of failure and loss of self-esteem, failed political system and stagnant economies. Stephen Zunes of the University of San Francisco goes further and lays the blame squarely on US policy towards political Islam (Foreign Policy in Focus, June 2001). He identified problems of current US policy being US support of hardliner repressive Islamic regimes making democratic and non-violent opposition as a nonviable option; US tolerance of "democratic exceptions" in many Islamic countries on grounds of vital national interests and in the process perpetuating unfair distribution of wealth in those societies; and perhaps the cardinal sin of US policy is its totally one sided support of Israel in the Arab Israel dispute.

Middle East road map is not seen by many as implementable or reflection of US equidistant policy in the Palestinian dispute. If the virtual regime change from Yasser Arafat to pliable Abu Mazen was necessary for a Middle East peace deal then it becomes difficult to understand how Ariel Sharon/ Benjamin Netanyahu or other Israeli leaders waiting in the wings can credibly lead to a lasting solution of the Middle East crisis. Muslim suspicion about the US brokerage is not ill founded. As Stephen Zunes keeps on reminding us of the fact that from the time of the crusades through European colonisation and the Iraq war western Christians killed far more Muslims than has been the case in reverse and the Muslims have a very strong sense of this historical fact.

It has now been revealed that several British embassies across the Middle East had warned London two decades before the emergence of Al-Qaida about the revival of Muslim fundamentalism. Though most Arabists of the time believed that political Islam was historical phenomenon few inquisitive British diplomats were told that since Arab nationalism had manifestly failed people were turning to Islamic nationalism. A British ambassador in Algeria confirmed fears of a revival in the interest in Islam almost twenty years before the internecine war in Algeria which claimed the live of thousands of people. Prescience of some notwithstanding the British intelligence, CIA, Mossad etc were reportedly caught with pants down when the Iranian revolution happened. Apparently the suddenness of this historical event was comparable to the tearing down of the Berlin Wall in 1989 when people were still in a daze about the unfolding drama. The skeptics would, however, point out that had the Americans not been instrumental in the overthrow of popular Iranian Prime Minister Dr. Mohammed Mosadegh and replacing him with Reza Shah Pahlvi then Ayatollah Khomeini's triumphant return to Iran at the head of the Iranian Revolution would not have happened.

That US General Ginni who has had extensive experience of the region had given the Iranian clerics a few years at most before they are gone with the wind or that Michael Leeden of the American Enterprise Institute considers the Iranian people as the most pro-American in the area are separate issues. The fact remains that many Muslims retain a strong historical sense of the Anglo-French colonization of the Muslim countries which assaulted not only Islamic religion and culture but also caused the death of a million Algerians in their fight for independence from France. Despite Tony Blair's claim that NATO forces fought for the Bosnian and the Kosovar Muslims against Christian Serbs it has been alleged that the massacre at Srebrenica could have been avoided but for NATO's delayed decision which perhaps was occasioned because the victims were Muslims.

It is recognised though that Christian oppression was not confined to the Islamic world but had victims across a wide spectrum of different religionists. It has been argued that but for the mounting body bags Vietnam could have gone the way of Iraq if the Vietnam war had been fought today with precision bombing instead of when it was fought(1959-1975); that Rwandan carnage was inflicted by the Catholics on their co-religionists; that racism in the US did not differentiate between followers of different faiths ; that Lebanon has found peace now that the Muslims are in charge but was in war when the Christians were in the majority. Such arguments trying to establish moral superiority of one religion over another are not only irreverent and pugnacious but are fraught with the risk of losing the quintessence of the "clash of civilizations".

Francis Fukuyama (of The End of History and The Last Man fame) has maintained that the tragic events of nine-eleven did not nullify his thesis that mankind has reached the end of history which is "understood as a single, coherent, evolutionary process, taking into account the experience of all peoples in all times" because it was hard to find an alternative civilisation that people actually wanted to live in after discrediting socialism, monarchy, fascism and other types of authoritarianism. Fukuyama, however, seems to concede that nine-eleven events might have strengthened Samuel Huntington's premise (The Clash of Civilizations and Remaking of the World Order) that instead of progressing towards a single world order the world could be faced with several cultural groups and thereby produce fresh fault lines for global conflict. Fukuyama is also intrigued by Huntington's central question: whether institutions of modernity like democracy and capitalism are peculiar to the west or have a broader appeal. Though the modernity institutions are doing well in East Asia, South Asia, Latin America, and Africa, most of the Islamic countries suffer from democracy deficit and none of the Islamic countries have made successful transition from a developing country to a developed country like Singapore or South Korea.

Despite universal condemnation throughout the Islamic world of the carnage of nine-eleven questions have been raised whether radical Islam can constitute a serious alternative to western liberal democracy. One would wish it not to be so. For example despite the chaos which envelops Afghanistan most of the people seem relieved at being freed from the Taliban Caligula. In case of the Iranians after more than two decades of clerical rule it is generally believed that the youth who constitute the majority of the Iranian population would like to live in a freer and more liberal society. It can therefore be safely assumed that majority of the Muslims are not sent into paroxysm of anger and hatred over everything American. But then here one should pause to ponder over the Franco-German-Mexican abstention on the UNSC resolution on Liberia (the point of conflict being the immunity that would be enjoyed by the US soldiers on peace keeping mission in Liberia from possible prosecution before the International Criminal Court should they be accused of violation of the legal code of conduct which would apply to the soldiers of all other participating countries).

Equally one should think about the most recent rejection by the Arab Foreign Ministers to send troops to Iraq to share the burden of occupation being borne by Anglo-US forces. Ivan Elad of Cato Institute (Does US intervention overseas breed terrorism?-December 1998) reached the conclusion that large number of terrorist attacks that occurred in retaliation of an interventionist American foreign policy implicitly demonstrated that terrorism against US targets could be significantly reduced if the US adopted a policy of military restraint overseas.

But would it necessarily be so? Jessica Stern of Harvard University advises the west to spend on health, education and economic development to prevent the rise of Osama bin Ladens. Former Turkish President Suleyman Demirel feels that fundamentalist forces draw sustenance from poverty, inequality, injustice and repressive political system. President Clinton held the view that forces of reaction fed on disillusionment, poverty and despair. But empirical study on Islamists and terrorists found them to belong "significantly above the average in their generation". It has been said that like fascism, Marxism-Leninism in their heydays, militant Islam attracts highly competent, motivated and ambitious individuals.

So if militant Islam is not a function of poverty and as Birthe Hansen of Copenhagen University puts it that the spread of free market, capitalism and liberal democracy is probably an important factor in the rise of political Islam, the West may have to look for a solution less confrontational and more based on diplomatic and, when necessary, economic engagements. In this respect President Bush's declaration that US respected the faith of Islam; British Foreign Secretary's admission of the existence of Christian, Jewish and Sikh fundamentalists along with Muslim fundamentalists; and Tony Blair's call to reach out to the Arabs and the Muslims; US resolve to encourage democratisation in the Muslim world and to forsake the policy of democratic exception followed hitherto; and western willingness to enter into dialogue with the Muslim world on the basis of equality and respect for differences -- are welcome signs. Faith is like Dresden china to be handled with care. While crusades will always remain a part of human history reenactment of the old scenes can only spell disaster for the world at large.

Kazi Anwarul Masud is a former Secretary and Ambassador.