A Path Towards Reconciliation in the Muslim World
A Path Towards Reconciliation in the Muslim World
As is no doubt the case with many of you, I often read and watch events unfold in the Muslim World with great trepidation. Without taking sides, because these issues are so very complex, it's terribly distressing to observe the proxy war between the Persians and the Gulf Arabs in Yemen. We see death, destruction and suffering amongst so many innocent men, women and children who want no part in any of this, yet they find themselves helplessly trapped in the middle. They are suffering from outbreaks of long since eradicated diseases including cholera and diphtheria and due to the closure of ports for security reasons, food, water, medicines and vaccines have been in desperately short supply. As a result of this awful war many of the facilities previously available to treat people requiring medical care have been destroyed and many of Yemen's medics have been killed or have themselves, fled to safety. Consequently, many of the most vulnerable members of society will suffer and die.
This scenario of suffering of innocents is consistently replicated throughout the Muslim World, most notably in Afghanistan, Burma, China, Iraq, Kashmir, Palestine and of course in Syria, often for similar reasons or sometimes for even more complex reasons. In some cases, the clashes involve domestic disputes juxtaposed alongside Western interests who seek to fulfill their own strategic geopolitical agenda.
Nevertheless, regardless of where the blame lies, the Muslim World appears to be in the midst of World War III. No one has yet used this terminology to describe what is happening there but as the old saying goes, “if it looks like a duck, if it walks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck.” What happened on the European Continent during WW II – specifically, the death and maiming of millions of innocents [sometimes as casualties of war and sometimes as an act of genocide] – is also now happening on a frequent and widespread basis in the Muslim World. The deliberate destruction of European cultural monuments and art, of infrastructure, of economies, of heritage and history that took place during WW II is now happening with religious regularity throughout the Muslim World.
But what are we, the ordinary citizens of this world, to do besides pray for the suffering of so many innocents? Those in power in the Muslim World – Kings and Princes, Presidents and Prime Ministers, Ambassadors and Foreign Ministers, Delegates and Representatives to the Arab League, The Organization for Islamic Cooperation and to the UN, Legislators and Parliamentarians, men and women who hold office and have power and resources at their disposal – seem incapacitated when it comes to finding and delivering solutions.
In the end though, we bow our heads in disbelief, perhaps have a few heated arguments at each other's dinner parties or summer barbecues, perhaps even throw something at our large screen televisions out of extreme frustration. But for me, writing about the Muslim World and then exploring my mind for ideas on how to perhaps navigate our way out from these difficult circumstances is cathartic and my hope is to continue with this because doing so helps me to examine ideas thoughtfully, unencumbered by political realities, almost in a dream like state, to see where things may lead. I had an epiphany, a moment in which a truth became very clear to me while I was consumed in the writing of my book: that knowledge is the understanding of things as they are. Knowledge is the understanding of things as they are. But imagination is the understanding of things as they might be.
I've come to the conclusion that arguing about these matters never produces any tangible results. But literature? Maybe, just maybe my thoughts will fall into enough hands, curious hands, curious minds, thoughtful minds, hopeful minds, minds that might just create a groundswell that can help us find our way out from this morass. The situation in Europe post WW II was arguably worse than what we're presently witnessing in the Muslim World and if their people decided they had had enough of bloodshed, destruction, fighting and the subsequent and inescapable misery, perhaps my thoughts can inspire people, perhaps it can serve as an impetus for them to do the same in the Muslim World.
Readers often say to me, Vicar, I really enjoyed your book. The storyline and characters were fascinating and rich, and your writing style is so vivid, I felt like I was there. But I was wondering, do you really believe that the central theme of your book – that the Shariah Parliament initiative could reunite the Muslim World – is really possible? You’ve obviously spent so much time researching and writing this book; surely you must have some thoughts on this. Can you explain why you think the Shariah Parliament project might actually work?
Since this is such an important question that really goes to the heart of my literary work, please remain engaged with me while I try to explain my thoughts on this critical question since my response is a bit involved. It’s true, I have spent a great deal of time thinking about whether such an initiative is really possible and my unequivocal answer is, yes, I really do think it is. First, a short history lesson that borrows from Europe’s post war history:
The philosophy underlying America's foreign policy agenda towards Europe in the post World War II era was understandably empathetic and egalitarian in character. Anyone familiar with Western history over the past several centuries could easily understand why. After all, the people of America had a great deal in common with Europeans including culture, familial links, history, religion, traditions and values. As a result of these binding ties, American immigration policy between 1790-1952 was quite explicit: it required that anyone granted permission to immigrate be white, European and free.
America's postwar Marshall Plan injected $100B into Europe to accelerate the economic and social recovery on the Continent by helping to rebuild bridges, hospitals, roads, schools and all manner of infrastructure. It was an action and attitude that was deeply appreciated by Europeans to this day. In fact, we still find train stations along the Avenue des Champs-Élysées in Paris named after President Roosevelt and streets and monuments named and erected in honor of other Americans.
But America also benefited greatly from her empathetic foreign policy approach towards Europe. America had recently emerged from a decade of economic Depression and had begun to rapidly industrialize during the war years. In those postwar days, America took a long view of the situation and this enabled her to realize that aiding and accelerating Europe's recovery would quickly create new export markets for the products being produced by her new industrial capacity. The Marshall Plan was expected to help European families return to a level of household income that would enable them to soon become customers for products being produced by America’s new industrial powerhouse. Products including toasters, vacuum cleaners, washing machines and the numerous other consumer products she would soon be making. The Marshall plan was a proverbial “win-win” for both America and Europe and is admired to this day by historians and policy think tanks as a crowning achievement of postwar foreign policy success.
Unfortunately though, America’s foreign policy vision in Asia and Africa did not mirror the empathetic and egalitarian spirit exhibited in her foreign policy vision towards Europe in the post war era. Rather, it reflected diametrically opposed foreign policy characteristics that seemed to mirror the classic Imperial European foreign policy trajectory of “Divide and Conquer” cultivated over centuries past. It was difficult to understand why America’s great thinkers and advisors would lead America down this Imperialist foreign policy trajectory, when, after all, the shattered remnants of Europe’s preeminent Imperial powers stood manifest before them, in the persona of Winston Churchill and Charles de Gaulle.
America's foreign policy towards Asia and Africa initially seemed to be on a course independent of that of Imperial Europe. In fact, in the mid-1950's when Britain, France and Israel commenced a secret plan to attack Egypt in an attempt to force Colonel Naser to reverse his position on the nationalization of the Suez Canal, America openly condemned the actions of these important allies and threatened to impose severe sanctions on them during a Security Council meeting. This was an absolutely unimaginable course of action from the perspective of the times in which we now live. Britain was humiliated at home as the three Nations withdrew from Egypt with great embarrassment.
Nevertheless, Europe's Imperial powers, although waning in global influence in the postwar climate, prevailed as they sought to maintain some semblance of authority and stature by shaping the foreign policy philosophy and trajectory of this new super power, America. The Europeans convinced their American counterparts that they had centuries of experience in foreign policy in Asia and Africa, and so America acquiesced.
But now America's sphere of influence over Asia and Africa, in the view of many critical thinkers and policy analysts has, like the Imperial Europeans before them, also begun to ebb and wane. At the same time as Western spheres of influence across the region recede, China's sphere of influence has been rapidly expanding. Of critical note here, China’s foreign policy philosophy more closely resembles America's previously mentioned egalitarian and empathetic approach towards postwar Europe as opposed to the foreign policy philosophy of Imperial Europe towards Asia and Africa. This point is of a degree and significance whose impact simply cannot be overstated.
When America introduced the Marshall Plan it was understood that Europe would provide the statesmanship to once again subjugate Europeans across the Continent to the rule of law. Jurists, Politicians and Statesman would assume the responsibility in their respective domains to rebuild institutions of civil society in concert with the economic and physical rebuilding efforts of the Marshall Plan. The rule of law and civil society were deemed critical to the overall success of the European Project.
In September of 2013, China announced its Belt and Road Initiative, BRI or One Belt One Road, OBOR. OBOR is essentially a 21st century reincarnation of the ancient Silk Road. OBOR mirrors America and Europe's postwar Marshall Plan with the exception of its scale - you see, OBOR is a $1T project linking nearly seventy countries and two-thirds of the world's population across Asia, Africa and Europe into a single economic zone. Perhaps most importantly from the perspective of my vision for the Shariah Parliament, many of the countries falling within the sphere of this OBOR economic zone also fall within the sphere of the AL/OIC.
China will also have expectations of OBOR member states that they ensure stable societies with a high standard of governance. Thus, the efforts of the Shariah Parliament to develop a legal framework based upon sacred scripture and tradition that countries in the Muslim World already recognize and submit to, should lead to the ratification of this legal framework in the national legislatures of these Islamic countries. I believe such ratification will be directly in line with China's expectations for good governance and rule of law. China will not want to see her unprecedented investment in bridges, power generation facilities, tunnels or any other 21st century OBOR infrastructure damaged or destroyed as a result of banditry or lawlessness.
If we examine the rapidly evolving geopolitical and geostrategic events of the past twenty years and extrapolate where we are most likely headed, it is not difficult to imagine a European Union style federation emerging across the Muslim World. Such a Federation with uniform governance and intact sovereignty for its member states is clearly not without precedent. Furthermore, this model will be best suited to engage and support the OBOR program in a way that can benefit the Muslim World and all OBOR partners for generations to come.
The change in the sphere of influence being cast across the Muslim World from the Imperial and hegemonic policies of the past such as Sykes-Picot that have been blamed for so much of the chaos in the Middle East will no longer serve as the proverbial punching bag for leaders across the region. If they do not recognize the changes so obviously afoot, the OBOR initiative will bypass them altogether, as it has today, and they will relegate their citizens to another century of misery.
In closing, I must share with you that I take great comfort in the words of the Prophet Muhammad when he said, "The ink of the scholar is more sacred than the blood of the martyr."
Indeed! Indeed. For "The pen is", most definitely, "mightier than the sword."
Vicar Sayeedi is the author of the novel, The Shariah Parliament. The book is available on Amazon. He is currently working on Part 2 of the story.
As is no doubt the case with many of you, I often read and watch events unfold in the Muslim World with great trepidation. Without taking sides, because these issues are so very complex, it's terribly distressing to observe the proxy war between the Persians and the Gulf Arabs in Yemen. We see death, destruction and suffering amongst so many innocent men, women and children who want no part in any of this, yet they find themselves helplessly trapped in the middle. They are suffering from outbreaks of long since eradicated diseases including cholera and diphtheria and due to the closure of ports for security reasons, food, water, medicines and vaccines have been in desperately short supply. As a result of this awful war many of the facilities previously available to treat people requiring medical care have been destroyed and many of Yemen's medics have been killed or have themselves, fled to safety. Consequently, many of the most vulnerable members of society will suffer and die.
This scenario of suffering of innocents is consistently replicated throughout the Muslim World, most notably in Afghanistan, Burma, China, Iraq, Kashmir, Palestine and of course in Syria, often for similar reasons or sometimes for even more complex reasons. In some cases, the clashes involve domestic disputes juxtaposed alongside Western interests who seek to fulfill their own strategic geopolitical agenda.
Nevertheless, regardless of where the blame lies, the Muslim World appears to be in the midst of World War III. No one has yet used this terminology to describe what is happening there but as the old saying goes, “if it looks like a duck, if it walks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck.” What happened on the European Continent during WW II – specifically, the death and maiming of millions of innocents [sometimes as casualties of war and sometimes as an act of genocide] – is also now happening on a frequent and widespread basis in the Muslim World. The deliberate destruction of European cultural monuments and art, of infrastructure, of economies, of heritage and history that took place during WW II is now happening with religious regularity throughout the Muslim World.
But what are we, the ordinary citizens of this world, to do besides pray for the suffering of so many innocents? Those in power in the Muslim World – Kings and Princes, Presidents and Prime Ministers, Ambassadors and Foreign Ministers, Delegates and Representatives to the Arab League, The Organization for Islamic Cooperation and to the UN, Legislators and Parliamentarians, men and women who hold office and have power and resources at their disposal – seem incapacitated when it comes to finding and delivering solutions.
In the end though, we bow our heads in disbelief, perhaps have a few heated arguments at each other's dinner parties or summer barbecues, perhaps even throw something at our large screen televisions out of extreme frustration. But for me, writing about the Muslim World and then exploring my mind for ideas on how to perhaps navigate our way out from these difficult circumstances is cathartic and my hope is to continue with this because doing so helps me to examine ideas thoughtfully, unencumbered by political realities, almost in a dream like state, to see where things may lead. I had an epiphany, a moment in which a truth became very clear to me while I was consumed in the writing of my book: that knowledge is the understanding of things as they are. Knowledge is the understanding of things as they are. But imagination is the understanding of things as they might be.
I've come to the conclusion that arguing about these matters never produces any tangible results. But literature? Maybe, just maybe my thoughts will fall into enough hands, curious hands, curious minds, thoughtful minds, hopeful minds, minds that might just create a groundswell that can help us find our way out from this morass. The situation in Europe post WW II was arguably worse than what we're presently witnessing in the Muslim World and if their people decided they had had enough of bloodshed, destruction, fighting and the subsequent and inescapable misery, perhaps my thoughts can inspire people, perhaps it can serve as an impetus for them to do the same in the Muslim World.
Readers often say to me, Vicar, I really enjoyed your book. The storyline and characters were fascinating and rich, and your writing style is so vivid, I felt like I was there. But I was wondering, do you really believe that the central theme of your book – that the Shariah Parliament initiative could reunite the Muslim World – is really possible? You’ve obviously spent so much time researching and writing this book; surely you must have some thoughts on this. Can you explain why you think the Shariah Parliament project might actually work?
Since this is such an important question that really goes to the heart of my literary work, please remain engaged with me while I try to explain my thoughts on this critical question since my response is a bit involved. It’s true, I have spent a great deal of time thinking about whether such an initiative is really possible and my unequivocal answer is, yes, I really do think it is. First, a short history lesson that borrows from Europe’s post war history:
The philosophy underlying America's foreign policy agenda towards Europe in the post World War II era was understandably empathetic and egalitarian in character. Anyone familiar with Western history over the past several centuries could easily understand why. After all, the people of America had a great deal in common with Europeans including culture, familial links, history, religion, traditions and values. As a result of these binding ties, American immigration policy between 1790-1952 was quite explicit: it required that anyone granted permission to immigrate be white, European and free.
America's postwar Marshall Plan injected $100B into Europe to accelerate the economic and social recovery on the Continent by helping to rebuild bridges, hospitals, roads, schools and all manner of infrastructure. It was an action and attitude that was deeply appreciated by Europeans to this day. In fact, we still find train stations along the Avenue des Champs-Élysées in Paris named after President Roosevelt and streets and monuments named and erected in honor of other Americans.
But America also benefited greatly from her empathetic foreign policy approach towards Europe. America had recently emerged from a decade of economic Depression and had begun to rapidly industrialize during the war years. In those postwar days, America took a long view of the situation and this enabled her to realize that aiding and accelerating Europe's recovery would quickly create new export markets for the products being produced by her new industrial capacity. The Marshall Plan was expected to help European families return to a level of household income that would enable them to soon become customers for products being produced by America’s new industrial powerhouse. Products including toasters, vacuum cleaners, washing machines and the numerous other consumer products she would soon be making. The Marshall plan was a proverbial “win-win” for both America and Europe and is admired to this day by historians and policy think tanks as a crowning achievement of postwar foreign policy success.
Unfortunately though, America’s foreign policy vision in Asia and Africa did not mirror the empathetic and egalitarian spirit exhibited in her foreign policy vision towards Europe in the post war era. Rather, it reflected diametrically opposed foreign policy characteristics that seemed to mirror the classic Imperial European foreign policy trajectory of “Divide and Conquer” cultivated over centuries past. It was difficult to understand why America’s great thinkers and advisors would lead America down this Imperialist foreign policy trajectory, when, after all, the shattered remnants of Europe’s preeminent Imperial powers stood manifest before them, in the persona of Winston Churchill and Charles de Gaulle.
America's foreign policy towards Asia and Africa initially seemed to be on a course independent of that of Imperial Europe. In fact, in the mid-1950's when Britain, France and Israel commenced a secret plan to attack Egypt in an attempt to force Colonel Naser to reverse his position on the nationalization of the Suez Canal, America openly condemned the actions of these important allies and threatened to impose severe sanctions on them during a Security Council meeting. This was an absolutely unimaginable course of action from the perspective of the times in which we now live. Britain was humiliated at home as the three Nations withdrew from Egypt with great embarrassment.
Nevertheless, Europe's Imperial powers, although waning in global influence in the postwar climate, prevailed as they sought to maintain some semblance of authority and stature by shaping the foreign policy philosophy and trajectory of this new super power, America. The Europeans convinced their American counterparts that they had centuries of experience in foreign policy in Asia and Africa, and so America acquiesced.
But now America's sphere of influence over Asia and Africa, in the view of many critical thinkers and policy analysts has, like the Imperial Europeans before them, also begun to ebb and wane. At the same time as Western spheres of influence across the region recede, China's sphere of influence has been rapidly expanding. Of critical note here, China’s foreign policy philosophy more closely resembles America's previously mentioned egalitarian and empathetic approach towards postwar Europe as opposed to the foreign policy philosophy of Imperial Europe towards Asia and Africa. This point is of a degree and significance whose impact simply cannot be overstated.
When America introduced the Marshall Plan it was understood that Europe would provide the statesmanship to once again subjugate Europeans across the Continent to the rule of law. Jurists, Politicians and Statesman would assume the responsibility in their respective domains to rebuild institutions of civil society in concert with the economic and physical rebuilding efforts of the Marshall Plan. The rule of law and civil society were deemed critical to the overall success of the European Project.
In September of 2013, China announced its Belt and Road Initiative, BRI or One Belt One Road, OBOR. OBOR is essentially a 21st century reincarnation of the ancient Silk Road. OBOR mirrors America and Europe's postwar Marshall Plan with the exception of its scale - you see, OBOR is a $1T project linking nearly seventy countries and two-thirds of the world's population across Asia, Africa and Europe into a single economic zone. Perhaps most importantly from the perspective of my vision for the Shariah Parliament, many of the countries falling within the sphere of this OBOR economic zone also fall within the sphere of the AL/OIC.
China will also have expectations of OBOR member states that they ensure stable societies with a high standard of governance. Thus, the efforts of the Shariah Parliament to develop a legal framework based upon sacred scripture and tradition that countries in the Muslim World already recognize and submit to, should lead to the ratification of this legal framework in the national legislatures of these Islamic countries. I believe such ratification will be directly in line with China's expectations for good governance and rule of law. China will not want to see her unprecedented investment in bridges, power generation facilities, tunnels or any other 21st century OBOR infrastructure damaged or destroyed as a result of banditry or lawlessness.
If we examine the rapidly evolving geopolitical and geostrategic events of the past twenty years and extrapolate where we are most likely headed, it is not difficult to imagine a European Union style federation emerging across the Muslim World. Such a Federation with uniform governance and intact sovereignty for its member states is clearly not without precedent. Furthermore, this model will be best suited to engage and support the OBOR program in a way that can benefit the Muslim World and all OBOR partners for generations to come.
The change in the sphere of influence being cast across the Muslim World from the Imperial and hegemonic policies of the past such as Sykes-Picot that have been blamed for so much of the chaos in the Middle East will no longer serve as the proverbial punching bag for leaders across the region. If they do not recognize the changes so obviously afoot, the OBOR initiative will bypass them altogether, as it has today, and they will relegate their citizens to another century of misery.
In closing, I must share with you that I take great comfort in the words of the Prophet Muhammad when he said, "The ink of the scholar is more sacred than the blood of the martyr."
Indeed! Indeed. For "The pen is", most definitely, "mightier than the sword."
Vicar Sayeedi is the author of the novel, The Shariah Parliament. The book is available on Amazon. He is currently working on Part 2 of the story.
No comments have been added yet.
