United States President Barack Obama , in his speech in Cairo on June 4,picked a very appropriate Quranic phrase, 'Be conscious of God and always speakthe truth'. This phrase has been used in Quran twice -- in Chapter 4 and Chapter33.
The Cairo speech has been described as a promise of the dawn of a new age, but one aspect of the speech is particularly disturbing. Muslims the world over are projected as one single monolithic identity. It appears that President Obama has unwitting
United States President Barack Obama , in his speech in Cairo on June 4,picked a very appropriate Quranic phrase, 'Be conscious of God and always speakthe truth'. This phrase has been used in Quran twice -- in Chapter 4 and Chapter33.
The Arabic word used in the phrase is Sadeed and it means somethingmore than truth. It means apposite, relevant, to the point and hitting thetarget. Unlike Sidq, which means plain truth and honesty, Sadeedimplies a candid and unequivocal speech directed to the service of whole andcomplete justice.
It must be said to the credit of President Obama that he minced no words tohit the target while addressing his essentially Arab, Israeli and Iranianaudience -- the people whom his media managers have euphemistically described asthe Muslim world.
President Obama dealt with a whole range of issues including war against theTaliban in Afghanistan, the Iraq war, terrorism repackaged as violentreligious extremism, the Israel-Palestine imbroglio, Iran's right to accessnuclear power for peaceful and development purposes, democracy, freedom ofreligion and worship, rights of minorities and women and issues related toeconomic development and progress.
The speech was an expression of very noble intentions and understandably didnot spell out, at this stage, how the Obama administration will follow up onthese issues. The only exception was the Israel-Palestine issue, where thepresident not only promised to pursue a two-State solution, but also sent aclear message to Palestinians and Israelis to stop pursuing old agendas thatimpede peace.
On one hand, he asked the Palestinians, particularly Hamas, to shun violenceand stop mindless killings. On the other hand, he told Israel to put an end tothe settlement activities in the occupied areas, as they violate previousagreements and undermine peace efforts.
The conspicuous absence of the term 'terrorism' was a marked departure fromthe language of the earlier administration. Instead, Obama used 'violentreligious extremism' to describe the ideology that motivates perpetrators ofviolence. The part of the speech which stressed on the need to make theextremists isolated and unwelcome in Muslim societies, evoked quite anappreciative response from the audience.
On the question of democracy, the president made it clear that no nation hasthe right to choose a system of governance for another nation. However, hestated that he will not dilute his commitment to the principle that governmentsmust reflect the will of the governed and he shall welcome and support allelected and peaceful governments, provided they govern with respect for alltheir people.
The tremendous applause that greeted the remarks of the president ondemocracy is a powerful indication of the popular Arab desire to have a systemof governance that is not only representative and accountable but ensuresfreedoms and liberties available in democratic societies.
It must be understood that the common man on the Arab streets is as keen andenthusiastic to have his say in the affairs of the state as anybody else. Butpolitical establishments tend to resist and suppress this democratic aspiration.Again, it is not very realistic to hope that the regimes, which deny the basicright to elect their own governments to their people, shall behave moregenerously in the case of minorities and women and concede their rights.
America is the oldest democracy and is perceived as a champion of democracy,but it is strange that it has all the non-democratic regimes in the region asits allies and close friends. This is one argument that has been used veryeffectively by America's detractors to make it unpopular among the Arab masses.
Since President Obama travelled all the way to Cairo to seek a new beginningbetween the United States and Muslims (read Arabs) and made very positive andoptimistic remarks about democracy, it is imperative that his administrationformulate a new strategy to keep the goodwill and positive feelings alive.
One sure method to do this is to be seen as a friend and sympathiser of thevotaries of democracy and not as an ally and protector of those who suppresspopular aspirations.
The Cairo speech has been described as a promise of the dawn of a new age,but one aspect of the speech is particularly disturbing. Muslims the worldover are projected as one single monolithic identity, as opposed to otherreligious communities which are identified by their geographical or racialdenominations.
Today, Islam or Muslims are not confined to any one particular geographicalregion; in fact more than 80 percent Muslims belong to non-Arab lands, includingthe US. But in President Obama's speech, a faith like Islam and a nation-Statelike America are placed side by side as two equivalent entities.
On the other hand, Egyptian and Lebanese religious minorities have beendescribed by their racial denominations such as Coptic and Maronites, and not bytheir Christian faith.
I do not see any design behind this idiom and terminology, but it appearsthat President Obama has unwittingly used the language of the pan-Islamistradicals. Right from Jamaluddin Afghani to Osama bin Laden , the ideologicalplank of pan-Islamists has been that Muslims are not only adherents of onecommon religion but they constitute one single political community.
Sir Syed Ahmed Khan had taken the lead to oppose Jamaluddin Afghani when hecame to India to mobilise support for his campaign for a Caliphate. In 1897, SirSyed wrote two articles, in which he forcefully rejected the idea of Muslimsbeing one political community under obligation to accept the Turkish Caliph astheir political and spiritual head, and asserted that the authority of theTurkish Caliph is confined only to the areas under his control.
It is true that Muslims, as adherents of Islam, share certain religiousbeliefs and values. But it is preposterous to suggest that this commonality ofreligious beliefs makes them one single political community. The politicaldifferences in the Muslim community started surfacing soon after the death ofthe Prophet in 632 AD and the selection of the first Caliph.
The history of the first century Hijra itself shows that the Muslimcommunity was divided by political dissensions and rivalries that led tocivil wars and strife.
In fact, in 755 AD, Spain seceded from the Muslim Caliphate of Baghdad to setup a rival kingdom under an Umayyad prince.
Osama bin Laden has indirectly identified the abolition of Caliphate in theearly part of 20th century as a 'humiliation of the Muslim Umma', butthe role played by the ruling monarchy of Saudi Arabia in bringing about thecollapse of the Turkish Caliphate is no less significant.
The 22 Arab states share not only religious beliefs but also have a commonlanguage and culture. But their political differences do not allow them to floateven a confederation.
The point is that Muslims subscribe to a common religion but they do notsubscribe to a common politics or common political ideology. Political sagacitydemands that they be alive to these realities, and not concede ground to theradicals who work overtime to project Islam as a political reality rather than areligious faith, in order to enhance their own importance as soi disant(self-styled) champions of the Umma.
Arif Mohammed Khan resigned as minister from Rajiv Gandhi's Councilof Ministers in 1987 in protest after the government moved a bill in Parliamentto overturn the Supreme Court verdict in the Shah Bano case. He has sinceremained a consistent voice of Muslim progressives