Religion and Politics

AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee is an organization that lobbies to promote and secure greater U.S. support for Israel and a stronger U.S.-Israel relationship. This past week, AIPAC held its Policy Conference 2008. All three of the U.S. presidential candidates spoke at the conference, as well as prominent speakers such as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. Barack Obama spoke at the conference on Wednesday, June 4, 2008. Obama directly stated that as President he would “never compromise when it comes to Israel’s security,” while making pledges for aid and support.  As part of the justifications for this decision to stand firm for Israel were: “voices that deny the Holocaust” and “terrorist groups and political leaders committed to Israel’s destruction.” Obama brought the politics of the Middle East into his speech by referencing “government-funded textbooks filled with hatred towards Jews.” The politically clever aspect of Obama’s speech was his ability to refute media allegations that he would have negotiations with country leaders like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without preconditions. The brilliant part of the speech was the connection he drew between the African American community and the Jewish community. Obama said, “Jewish and African Americans have stood shoulder to shoulder. They took buses down South together; they marched together; they bled together; and Jewish Americans like Andrew Goodman, Michael Schwerner were willing to die alongside a black man, James Cheney on behalf of freedom and on behalf of equality.”  

An agreement in Doha, Qatar has been signed among Lebanon’s political leaders. UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-Moon has welcomed the agreement and hopes it will be the start of “a lasting period of national reconciliation.” The Security Council also supports the agreement and the “decision to continue the national dialogue on ways to reinforce the authority of the State over all its territory.” Under the agreement, a new president will be chosen and there will be a national unity cabinet. Reuters has reported some of the facts of the agreement, which was reached after six days of talks, which were initiated after disastrous fighting that led to 81 people killed. Reuters has also reported that U.S. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice believes Hezbollah was weakened by the fighting in Lebanon because now Hezbollah has shown the world that is not a resistance movement but a militia that “decided to turn its guns on its own people.”  On the other hand, according to the agreement, Hezbollah now has veto power in the cabinet. A good description of the anatomy of the agreement can be found in an article by David Schenker, who argues that Hezbollah’s “modus operandi of using its military power to wrest concessions from the government was validated.” Meanwhile, Israel and Syria have announced that they were also negotiating peace. According to Ethan Bronner of the New York Times, “A real peace treaty with Syria would bring Israel significant advantages in Lebanon and the Palestinian territories.” Iran, always cited as the main supporter of Hezbollah, has praised the Agreement reached in Doha. Tehran Times has quoted the Iranian Foreign Ministry’s spokesman as saying that “the deal is the outcome of attempts made by Lebanon’s friendly countries and is a clear example of regional unity.” 

Regarding the previous post, President Bush has now also officially apologized to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki for the actions of the sniper, who used the Quran for target practice.

While Israel has been celebrating its 60^th anniversary, US President George W. Bush took a five-day trip to the Middle East (May 13-May 18). On May 15, President Bush addressed members of Israel’s Knesset. His remarks were controversial in the US domestic arena on account of his supposed criticism (attack?) of presidential candidate Barack Obama and other influential people, who “believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along.” However, the President’s words were also geared towards religion. He said, “We believe that religious liberty is fundamental to a civilized society.” Later in the speech, he said, “The killers claim the mantle of Islam, but they are not religious men.  In order to prevail, the President said that the values of justice, tolerance, freedom, and hope were values that are “the self-evident right of all people, of all religions, in all the world because they are a gift from the Almighty God.”

On May 18, President Bush spoke in Egypt for the World Economic Forum. He refuted the idea that democracy is merely a Western value that America wishes to impose on people. He said, “In a recent survey of the Muslim world, there was overwhelming support for one of the central tenets of democracy, freedom of speech: 99 percent in Lebanon, 94% here in Egypt, and 92% in Iran.” He reminded his audience that America is a religious country, where more than 75% of the people believe in a higher power. The President remarked that in “our democracy, we would never punish a person for owning a Koran. We would never issue a death sentence to someone for converting to Islam. Democracy does not threaten Islam or any religion.”

Meanwhile, the US military has announced that the American sniper in Iraq that shot at the Quran for target practice has been sent home. The very eloquent apology from Major-General Hammond to local elders calmed the resulting anger and tension. The military has also purchased for them a new holy book.

A classic example of the complex dynamics surrounding an “Islamic” party in a secular state is Turkey and the AKP (The Justice and Development Party), which has spent most of its recent political clout trying to remove the headscarf ban in universities. The Eurasia Daily Monitor (Jamestown Foundation) has recently reported on research that shows “Turks are becoming more pessimistic and introspective.” The article reflects on the decline of support for the AKP and the supposed “deep divisions in Turkish society over the future of secularism.” Apparently, “only 5.2% of AKP supporters were concerned that secularism was in danger.”

A second example of a secular state, which faces questions about the legitimate role of its religious political parties, is Tajikistan. This less-developed country (rarely discussed in world politics) prides itself on the open inclusion of the “Party of the Islamic Revival/Renaissance of Tajikistan” (also known as PIRT). Tajikistan perpetually claims the status of “most-democratic country in Central Asia” simply because the PIRT is active and openly challenges government policies and agenda items. This past week, in Tajikistan, at the National Center for Strategic Research, there was a presentation of a new book by Abdullo Rakhnamo, “Religious Parties and Secular Governments.” Rakhnamo has recently said during an interview that the legal functioning of the PIRT is “one of the most important components of the Tajik peace process.” His book focuses on the role of religious parties in maintaining equilibrium in developing political systems – helping to create “a culture of stability” leading to compromise and the furtherance of the rule of law.

This is a Guest Blog written by Zharmukhamed Zardykhan, an Assistant Professor at KIMEP, the Kazakhstan Institute of Management, Economics, and Strategic Research.

  The First World War was noted not only for its horrific physical destruction and tremendous financial ruin, but for the first time systematic international propaganda became one of the most effective means of warfare.

The incorporation of the notion of jihâd into wartime propaganda had already gained strength during the Balkan Wars and, in fact, did not slacken its pace up until the First World War. Indeed, the very notion of warfare, whether offensive or defensive, obtained a certain character in traditional Islam and its interpretation, depending on whose part it is conducted, so that, according to Ibn Khaldûn, any warfare conducted by Muslims, including an offensive one, is not only legitimate, but also a holy war, or jihâd, since in the long run it undertakes a mission of leading the world population to Islamic faith. (1) However, the long-established Turkic and Anatolian tradition established a difference between jihâd and ghâzâ, referring, respectively, to the defense of Muslim lands against the aggression of infidel troops and to the actual invasion of infidel lands by Muslim troops empowered by the Caliph. (2)

But what about the Ottoman proclamations for jihâd during the First World War? The traditional appeals to fight down the infidels would not work because of the German troops fighting alongside of Ottomans. The appeals to resist the enslavers and suppressors of Muslim populations would be impeded by Austro-Hungarian and Bulgarian participation in the Great War on the side of the Central Powers. Furthermore, throughout the First World War, the Ottoman troops had to stand against fellow Muslim soldiers among the Russian, British or French troops.

Here comes the Ottoman fatwâ, the religious edict issued by Ottoman şeyh-ül-islâm Ürgüplü Hayrî Efendî that justified the religious and spiritual grounds of war. Structured in the traditional Ottoman pattern, this fetvâ-i şerîf (3) contained five issues [mes’ele] concerning different features of the war and answers to them [el-cevâb]. In brief, the fetvâ-i şerîf assured that: (1) at the time when Islam is assaulted and Islamic population is threatened by annihilation and imprisonment, the physical and material contribution of every Muslim to the holy war is an individual and unavoidable obligation [farz-i ‘ayn]; (2) it is an obligation [farz] for the Muslim population of Russia, Britain and France to declare jihâd against these governments and actually joint it; (3) even if they were threatened by death or the extermination of their families, fighting against the soldiers of the Islamic Government [i.e. Ottoman State] is absolutely forbidden [harâm-i kat’î] by religious law and the infringers would be thrown to infernal fire [nâr-i cahîm]; (4) the fighting of the Muslim subjects of Britain, France, Russia, Serbia and Montenegro against Germany and Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman allies, would harm the Islamic Caliphate and those who fought would suffer grievous wrath [gazâb-i elîm].

Similarly, upon the Ottoman engagement into the First World War, numerous articles on the nature of jihâd and its place and justification by the Islamic law started appearing in Ottoman periodical press. As “Religion and War” acknowledged thoroughly using quotations from Qur’ân, “the Muslims do not fight for personal and arbitrary causes,” while jihâd is bound to the greater cause and is both permitted and obligatory.(4) At the same time, the outburst of the war came out as an opportunity to strengthen the image of the Caliphate not only outside, but also within the Empire, as did “What Kind of a Caliph the Enemies of the Caliphate Want?” by stating that “the Caliphate of Islam is not a weak [kuvvetsiz] and humble [şevketsiz] institution like the Papacy that only has religious guardianship and spiritual governance.”(5)

[1] See Abu-Sahlieh, Sami A. Adeeb. “The Islamic Conception of Migration.” International Migration Review 30, No. 1 (Spring 1996): 37-57.[2] See Darling, Linda. “Contested Territory: Ottoman Holy War in Comparative Context.”Studia Islamica No. 91 (2000): 133-163.[3] For the text of the fatwâ see “Fetâvâ-i Şerîfe,” Cihân-i İslâm, No. 50; and “Fetâvâ-i Şerîfe,” Donanma, No. 68-20 (16 Teşrîn-i sânî 1914).[4] “Dîn ve Harb,” İslâm Mecmû’ası, Year 2, No. 42 (7 Djumâdâ ‘l-Ûlâ 1334) [1916].[5] “Hilâfet Düsmânları Nâsıl Bir Halife İstiyor?” İslâm Mecmû’ası, Year 2, No. 46 (9 Dhu l’-Ka’da 1334) [1916].

(Photographed by Karin Esposito, 2004, Tehran)

The organization Search for Common Ground (SFCG), on April 7, 2008, published the results of a second poll that it took of 710 Iranian adults – both in rural and urban areas. The first extensive survey it took of Iranian citizens was published in January 2007. SFCG has complemented the survey of Iranians by asking similar questions to 703 respondents in the United States.

As the U.S. has now successfully managed to get the UN Security Council to support a third round of sanctions against Iran, the timing of this follow-up poll of Iran-U.S. attitudes and perceptions is excellent. Although the survey addressed many specific topics, such as Iran’s nuclear program and Iranian influence in the Persian Gulf, this blog is interested in the poll results related to religion, politics, and tolerance. Here are some of the main findings of SFCG’s poll:

·        “A growing majority of Iranians believe that it is possible for Islam and the West to find common ground.” – “64% percent – now say it is possible to find common ground (up from 58%)”

·        “The United States is widely perceived as seeking not only to assert control over the oil resources of the Middle East, but to weaken and divide the Islamic world and to purposely humiliate Muslims.”

·        “The United States is seen as pursuing goals hostile to Iran and to Islam in general.”

·        “64% saw the United States as purposely seeking to humiliate the Islamic world. Twenty-one percent thought the United States is disrespectful, but out of ignorance, and only 5 percent thought the United States mostly shows respect.”

·        “Seventy-eight percent said the United States is not very (16%) or not at all (62%) committed to the goal of creating an independent and viable Palestinian state.”

·        Only 32% of Americans surveyed (as Americans were also polled) said that it is a US goal to weaken and divide the Islamic world.

·        “Only 14% [of Iranians] wanted Shari’a to play a smaller role” in the way Iran is governed.

Many Muslims see Yemen as a sanctuary – a tranquil home of Islam that stays close to tradition. This positive image for the faithful persists despite the conflict that broke out in 2004 between the government and Shi’ite rebels. Young Muslims, who want to study Arabic and religion, in a more authentic environment, often take a journey to Sanaa.  Meanwhile, however, Yemen is a hot spot in the world’s ongoing conflict over the question of clerical rule.  Is clerical rule (particularly in the Muslim world) increasing or decreasing? Is it becoming more or less popular?  We allege in the United States that the number of democratic countries is increasing. On the other hand, constitutional developments in Iraq and Afghanistan are increasingly based on religious principles.

Reuters reported this past Monday that Yemeni officials are saying: “the rebels want to return to a form of clerical rule prevalent in the country until the 1960s.” The rebels belong to the Shi’ite branch of Islam, particularly the Zaydi sect. Friday, May 2, 2008, a bomb explosion in northern Yemen killed at least 12 people outside a mosque. And, of course, whenever there is a debate about clerical rule – the question of Iranian influence is always in the background. The Yemeni government “has accused the Houthi rebels of receiving support from Iran.”  While Western media are analyzing the situation from the perspective of the War on Terror and whether Yemen is a safe haven for terrorists (al-Qaeda specifically), IRIN News has reported that the rebel leader, Abdul-Malik al-Houthi is calling for help because of the devastating effects of Yemen’s “stop-go” conflict.