Building bridges over the Gulf

Shafey Danish I remember that in the class 4 (or was it five?) history book we were prescribed, there was just one chapter that related to Islamic history, on Prophet Muhammad. But there was a chapter devoted to Simon Bolivar, the founder of Bolivia. In later classes too there was a curious lack of information on Islamic history. Had it not been for my readings outside of course material, I would never have known of Caliph Umar, the man under whom Islam became, in our modern terminology, a world power, or any of the other notable figures of Islamic history. When in later years I came across writings on the contributions of Islam to modern civilization (mostly written by Muslim writers for a Muslim audience) I tended to look upon them with a great deal of skepticism. We all want to believe we are inheritors of a great civilization without which the world would not have progressed this far, as with others so with Muslims. It was still later, though my readings of the renaissance, and Islam’s contribution to making it possible, that I gradually started believing these claims. That Islam indeed is the fountainhead of a civilization, much of which still flowed in the modern world. Since then it has always worried me that there is so precious little known about Islam, about the side that gave men a sense of direction when they had none, and taught them to gaze at stars when the world itself was imperfectly known. Indeed there is so little of these in our mainstream, that talking about them is to talk not of history but of myths and fables. One has to labour against manifest disbelief and very often the labour is lost. Listening to Obama’s speech in Cairo, after the spontaneous urge to applaud his assalam alailum had passed, the thing that moved me most was his acknowledgement of the great contributions to civilizations that Islam had made. To talk of compass, and algebra is to repeat the truisms of history, and yet these truisms bear repeating. It is the first step in fighting negative stereotypes of Islam, which have so rankled with the Muslim world. Obama’s promise, that he would fight it wherever and whenever they appear, is heartening, as quite a lot of it comes from America itself. This should go a long way towards curbing the kind of gratuitous provocations (like the Danish cartoons) that had become fashionable in the aftermath of 9/11. More than that, his speech was an acceptance of the cultural differences between Muslims and non Muslims. They would do certain things differently, look different, wear different clothes, and take their oath on the Quran rather than the Bible, and it was not just alright, but a matter of pride for America as it was a celebration of its cultural diversity and tolerance. His comments on granting the Muslim women their right to wear the hijab (he pronounced it hajib, but no matter) would have an impact on Muslim women seeking to embrace modernity while remaining within the boundaries of their religion all over the world. For decades popular culture had tended to see such women as prisoners of a regressive culture, the hijab itself has been portrayed as a symbol of suppression. Governments around the world have granted Muslim women the right to wear hijab uneasily, or have denied it altogether. Obama’s comments should go some distance furthering their cause in countries as culturally diverse as France and Turkey. Resolving conflicts Apart from speaking on these larger issues which cannot be confined to a set timeframe, nor to any geographical locality, he spoke forcefully and candidly (quoting the Quran: “Be conscious of God, and speak the truth", and so, he said he would speak the truth) on some of the most grating points in US-Muslim relations, Iraq , Israel-Palestine conflict, Bosnia, the threat of militants in ‘a stretch of mountains,’ and Iran and its nuclear ambitions. Quite a lot of it would have been music to Arab ears. In each of these theatres Obama made a decisive break, if not with policies – we are still to wait and watch how that pans out - with the rhetoric of his predecessor. He said he was against Israeli settlements on Palestinian lands, and that the condition of Palestinians was "intolerable". He said the US pursued no claim on the land or resources on Iraq; and sought no permanent military bases, neither in Afghanistan or Iraq. He even spelt out a timeframe for the withdrawal of combat troops and for the total withdrawal of US forces from Iraq (2012). The tone he took towards Hamas was remarkably softer than that chosen by the Bush administration (in fact Bush’s speechwriter called it a major policy shift on Fox News which, by the way, was busy blasting the speech) and on Iran he put the no-nukes-for-Iran, in the larger context of no-nukes-for-the-world, and spelt out a vision where even the US would function sans its N arsenal. All these efforts at a tight balancing act did not go unnoticed. It would take away one of the main arguments against American approach in the Middle East that it follows double standards, that while it pats Israel on the back for its repeated incursions, military raids, and bombing campaigns against neighboring Arab states, it cries holy murder the moment Hamas fires rockets across the high wall Israel has built. That while it expertly twiddles its thumbs when the Palestinians are blockaded into poverty and deprivation, it sets its entire diplomatic machinery in motion to condemn Hizbollah and Iran if some of Israel’s soldiers are killed or captured. How far would his efforts go towards changing perceptions. And making a "new beginning?" Well, that`s a billion dollar question. On the one hand the speech would certainly improve the sentiment on the street, `improve` being the operative word here, as opposed to `change.` The principle players on the other hand (Iran, Israel, Hamas, Palestinian authority) would see in his speech the beginnings of a new approach, but would wait cautiously before actually modifying their positions. In fact that is exactly what they have done. Israel ‘welcomed’ Obama’s speech, without referring to his settlement comments. Iran too welcomed the speech, but it too said nothing of his comments on nukes. Palestinian Authority welcomed the two state solution but left out everything else. It is obvious that each cherry picked from the speech according to their convenience. Another issue, that America should not be reduced to the stereotype of a hegemonic power, would only be resolved once America demonstrates in its deeds that it does not intend to behave like one. The impression has formed over long decades, when America relentlessly pursued imperialistic goals, changing regimes that were not conducive to its economic interests, supporting one side in a war, and then supporting the other depending which way its interest lay. No single speech can wipe out that impression. The speech is a beginning, and unless it is followed by actions it would not bring about the desired change. That said, America remains popular, not just in Arab countries but in south Asian ones too, as a destination of opportunity. This sentiment may have been overwhelmed by the war on terror, but it is there. And in this America has an ally in its efforts to improve its image. I hope – and one can but hope – that Muslims buy into the vision – as I did – of a world undivided by conflicts, free of nukes, and with equal rights and opportunity for everyone. Cynicism is like a self fulfilling prophecy, believe that an idea cannot succeed, and you damn its chances of success. A vista of opportunity? It would be naive to read in Obama’s speech a radical shift in its core policies, vis a vis, Israel or Iran. He is not about to start having dinner dates with Ahmadinejad, nor is he going to rattle America’s ballistic missiles at Israel and say, give up your nukes or else... No, this is not happening. Broadly his policy objectives would remain the same as that of his predecessor. But his shift, in tone and tenor, is enough to give a chance to those who would want to come out of the barricades of their old positions. It has long been said that even Hamas sees that Israel is going to remain in the midst of Arab states, and that it must work to move away from its position of denial of that fact. In fact the signals coming out of Hamas, right after it won the Palestinian elections, indicated that it was prepared to live with Israel as its neighbour. It was America’s and Israel’s decision to deny the fruits of that election to Hamas, by blockading and then splitting Palestine, that made Hamas retreat back to its old rhetoric. (On the way by the bye, America demonstrated that elections matter as long as they give the results America wants. If democracy gives results contrary to America’s interests, then too hell with the ballot, and out with the guns and bullets.) That position now needs to be resurrected, as Obama said, “Israel is not going to go away.” To believe otherwise is wishful, and dangerous thinking. Iran too needs to get out of its gratuitous denial of the holocaust. Such a position serves on ones interest and justifies Israel’s fears that an armed Iran would be an existential threat. By softening America’s position, Obama has given an opportunity to the leaders of Arab states to soften theirs, and therefore move to a mutually acceptable solution. If this were to happen it would indeed be the new beginning that Obama sought with the Muslim world. Obama’s speech, as the Hamas spokesperson said, may have been a projection of soft power, words designed to make US manufactured solutions more acceptable to the Arabs, and the Arabs seek not words but acts. But let’s make this clear, a statement of purpose by the President of the United States, whether it is followed by concrete steps or not, is an act in itself. And if the width of my room partner’s grin, after listening to Obama’s speech is any indication, this act is already having an impact.