Five Centuries Ago Tomorrow

Haroon Mughal:

You are not alone in the universe to work on the idea. Dr. Israr Ahmad of Tehreek-e-Islami is at it since ages.

However, I offer an alternative. Let us make Pakistan into an economic and military force and become a role model for other Muslim countries to show them the light.

By military force I am referring to the situation that the world listens to militarily stronger nations more attentively, not that I am suggesting a military campaign against the world at large.

Excellent piece of work and vision. I usually agree with almost everything that you have written in past, but I couldn`t agree with this any more. I might, however, disagree with your contention that Islamist`s visions are as extremist and shortsighted as those of nationalists, ethnicists, and socialists have proven to be. I do not agree with this. The fact remains that what you are proposing now had always been the Islamsits vision. It is being promoted even before the Ottomon Caliphate collapsed. That is the vision which people like Jamal ud din Afghani put froth in 19th century. An Islamic economic union is the ultimate goal - and I think the current American aggression has only given the necessary catalyst that it needed to accelerate.

The Sultanate of the Osmanli family was the one of the last synthesis of Muslim power under the banner of the Turkic tribes (the Mughals and Afghan/Pashtuns being the other).

Mr Moghul are you referring to the restoration of a Khilafat?, which could be seen differently from the restoration of the Ottoman Empire. There have been attempted restorations by the Kings of Egypt in the 1920`s in the case of an empire the case is different. After all any Empire ( Americana or otherwise) is based on a few basic concepts. The capacity to project power, the capacity to win wars, transcend religion and ethnicity and the belief in manifest destiny. While some would argue that economic prosperity should be the driving force, that is not neccessarily so. The creation of economic empires which did not need to occupy all the land was something unique to the British Empire and probably the Greek city states of the by gone era.

Pan Islamic or trans national concepts of alliances and unity have also had very bad records. The Arabs under Nasser tried to merge Syria and Egypt and failed. Pakistan failed in East Pakistan. Indonesia is in constant turmoil because of ethnic and religious divisions. Muslims seem to have failed to grasp what the structural flaws with the political systems they use to govern. They are unstable with no concepts of transition of power (the Ottomans employed a uniqe way to prevent the threat from rivals in the family. They were strangled), they failedl to balance either the role reliogion plays or the role ethnicity plays in a society. Militarily, no Muslim state has won an overwheliming victory in war against any opponent(there own people excluded) since the late 18th Century (the Turks, Afghans, Lebenese being notable exceptions but even in tjose cases they werent conventional battles they were wars of attirition).

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

And I thought an Ottoman was a footstool.....silly me!!

later
-sac

70 percent of the Muslims live east of Indus and the natural center of Islamic Khilafat must shift from Istanbul to Islamabad. I am all for Islamic khilafat out of Islamabad, sector G6-1/4 in Aab Para Market, behind Crown Bakery, second floor above Sangam Paan House. Free armpit shaving service performed by His Majesty khalifa himself.

It is clear that soon enough, many things are going to give and the region will collapse into terror and chaos. This is a prediction of which, unfortunately, I am rather confident. It is but a matter of time – even if it is a few decades away, it is coming.

Yes, Its been already predicted. Muslims will not be united till Mehdi appears.

If you are looking for a khilafah - watch for Mehdi He`ll be here soon.

The only concept of identity that seems to have worked in the world is that of a national identity - i.e. an identity based on the nation one belongs to. Not based on the religion/ethnicity/secularity etc. one belongs to.

The nations which have been able to look after all their citizens economically have prospered. While the ones that have not been able to do so have then been split up along religious/ethnic/linguistic etc. lines. This lunge towards religious or ethnic etc. divisions (as in case of creation of Pakistan, Bangladesh, Kashmir perhaps etc.) is never the first option of the individuals demanding it. There first option is always to be a part of the nation (geographic nation) they have been born into, regardless of religion, ethnicity etc.

This is clearly evident in the fact that individuals with the same religion, belonging to different nations, have gone to war with each other. So have individuals belonging to the same ethnicity, speaking the same language.

An Ottomon-type Islamic (or any other religion or concept like secularism) will not succeed. Since it will be trying to solve the wrong problem, i.e. uniting a group of illiterate, mislead and most of all poor group of nations. Such forced unions never work.

What needs to be done is for each Muslim nation to solve its economic problems and raise the standard of living of its citizens. It doesn`t really matter what kind of govt. leads such an economic revolution. The main criteria should be the human rights and economic record of the govt. - be it religious or secular (two extremely over-rated concepts in my opinion).

For the above to happen, and spread across the Muslim world, at least one Muslim nation needs to emerge out of the third world and become successful. Such a nation would then become, as Huntington states, a, ``core state`` for the Muslim civilization. This nation would then serve as the role model for other Muslim nations and would act as its unofficial leader in international conflicts - much like the USA does for the Western world China will eventually do for the chapta world).

Once all these nations have solved their economic woes, only then will some kind of a union be possible. This union would be more like a European Union and not like an Ottomon union, i.e. an economic block of Islamic nations and not a united Ummah of some sort - religious affinity, amongst economically advanced nations, rarely proves stronger than geographic affinity and/or cultural affinity.

The current group of Islamic leaders in various countries are part of the problem and not part of the solution. A Qazi Hussain-led Islamic govt. in Pakistan, on the whole, will be better (for the already rich it will be worse, for the poor it will be better) than a feudal Benazir or Nawaz-led one. However, it will still be a bad for Pakistan, its only feather in the cap being that it will not be as big of a negative as the feudal govts, which are now proven failiures and have even been rejected in elections in two provinces. Nearly all of the present leadership of the Muslim world (Saddams, Fahds, Khomenis, Benazirs, Hosnis, Arafats et al.), and the relgious leaderships waiting in the wings, are both disastrous for the Muslim nations. The first needs to be kicked out of power and the second needs to be kept away from power, somehow.

The solution for the Islamic countries is obviously not Western-styled secularist govts (Saddam and Syria were one at one point) nor Soviet styled socialist ones (Egypt and Afghanistan were one at one time). Nor is it Islamic govts. (not a single one, including Iran and Afghanistan has resulted in high living standards for their citizens).

Nor is the solution the concept of an Ummah or Ottomons (both totally connterproductive and impratical at this time). The solution is any govt., based on a national agenda (exclusive from an Ummah agenda, or a secular agenda or a Western agenda), that does one basic thing: it raises the economic standards of all members of the nation (men, women, minorities etc.).

Economics, based on a country-agenda (not an Ottomon agenda), and not secularism, religionism, socialism, Ummahism, Ottomanism etc. should be the deciding factor. At least for the time being, considering the state of development of the Muslim countries.

Do I hear the words, ``Tehrik-i-Insaaf`` being whispered somewhere over the horizon........:)

Dear Mr. Haroon Moghul,

Akhir, Khan Sahib, aap kehna kya chate hain?
History to hum bhi jaante hain!!!

RE: #5 by sac on April 1, 2003
Well said!!!

Haroon

A very good write up. I enjoyed reading it and learn`t a lot.

But I am scrared of states based on religion. Religion, with all its fuzziness, is good as a personal faith. But the moment it is forced to provide answers to the living day-to-day issues, it becomes an unguided missile.

And we, the Indus valley people, were never a part of the Ottoman empire. Our future must lie in South Asia - A secular SAARC federation.

author`s assertions make sense from an economic point of view as well. days of export led growth (a strategy employed by s.e. asian countries ) are over with the emergence of china as the manufacturing hub of the world. economic growth in developing countries in the near future will primarily be driven by internal demand. increased linkages between economic and political institutions across different muslim countries, if done properly, will lead to a larger common market which in turn will lead to economies of scale for companies in the region (a benefit now beginning to accrue to indian companies as a result of indian political union). increased linkages will also lead to a better allocation of labour and capital and lower the transactions cost of doing business with integration of transportation and communication systems and lowering of tariffs etc. most importantly however, creation of joint political institutions will lower the political risk of doing business, a huge drag on most economies in the region. domestic economic policies will be ineffective if neighbours don’t want to live in peace.

economic rationale for integration is still secondary in comparison to the reasons argued by the author. our political, economic and to a certain extent, our religious elites have placed an undue emphasis on a national identity to create a ``ku-anh kah maindak`` mentality among the masses. idea being that the less people know about progress made by the outside world and more people are scared of the threat posed by the outside world, the less likely they are to challenge the power of entrenched elites. there is a great deal of political, cultural, economic and religious diversity found within islamic world and softening of borders will lead people to question ideology peddled by the state.

distrust of the u.s. as well as increased terrorism arising out of iraq war is going to result in a decline of opportunities previously available to muslims in the west. by pooling resources, muslim countries can eventually overcome the vacuum.

I disagree that is is any REVIVAL in Muslim world.

Current event have shown that the ball is still falling. and there won`t be any revival unless and untill the ball hits the ground...which no one know , how long it will take.

The author says [So let us dream. And let us dream big. Let us think about Ottomans, about ideas that brought people together, that gave them a basis for resistance to outside intervention and kept them free of it for centuries. While one might challenge the legacy of the Ottomans and modernity, and what seemed to be their inability or unwillingness to keep up with Europe, I can only say: What they produced for the Muslim world was an order more stable, beneficial and benevolent than anything in existence since.]

The Ottomans produced **for the Muslim world** an order more stable, beneficial and benevolent anything in existence since. This itself is a debatable point.

However, all that crapola about [the Ottoman system serves as potent example for a region divided into false nations, whose borders criss-cross one another’s at all the wrong places. The Ottomans, as it should be recalled, were Turks who did not consider themselves such. Rather, they were a Muslim empire that put much less emphasis on race (or, indeed, class) and far more on the establishment of harmonious relations under the aegis of a moderate religious state. Perhaps one of the reasons the violence in the former Yugoslavia was so bad was because Muslims, Orthodox and Catholic Christians all lived right next door to one another: A legacy of Ottoman toleration.] is just plain nonsense. Try telling about Ottoman tolerance to the Armenians who were massacred in their millions.

The capacity for self-deception amongst the Ummah is mind-boggling.

Urstruly
``...and I think the current American aggression has only given the necessary catalyst that it needed to accelerate.``

As usual you`re straight as jelabi. The catalyst was 9/11. You Wahabis have finally awoken the ugly Sleeping Giant. It took 40 years of Lockerbie, Munich Olympics, Achilli Lauro and many embassy bombings, to name only a few. You finally got your Clash of Civilizations. You idiots walk up to the biggest guy in the bar and sucker punch him then whine like hell when he kicks your sorry asses, like the Six Day War of 67. Ab dance caron?

We observers can only run for cover in the obvious aftermath. Welcome to WW III. You always become what you fight most. OBL et al have become George Bush and vice versa. What you and your Wahabbi bretheren seem to share with George Bush, is a total lack of imagination - it`s the deadly, all-or-nothing inflexible rage of coddled and spoiled (male) children.

If you don`t yet believe this is WW III, wait until the next shoe drops. God save us all from morons like you.

Romair at # 8:

You wrote:
``For the above to happen, and spread across the Muslim world, at least one Muslim nation needs to emerge out of the third world and become successful. Such a nation would then become, as Huntington states, a, ``core state`` for the Muslim civilization. This nation would then serve as the role model for other Muslim nations and would act as its unofficial leader in international conflicts - much like the USA does for the Western world China will eventually do for the chapta world). ``

Huntington, if I recall correctly, talks about potential states for this slot as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan and Turkey. I would add to it Iran and Malaysia. Iran however, because of our slightly different version of Islam and being a theocracy may not be acceptable to a majority of Muslim countries.

IMHO, unless any one of the above states has the following 3 , it would not be acceptable to the rest of the Muslim countries:

1. Economic strength of at least equivalent of Malaysia
2. Military strength that surpasses all the other states in this group
3. Social indicators better than any other states in this group.

I personally think if Pakistanis become inwardly focused for a few years and see the role model thing as a vision then we may be in for it. Otherwise, with economy in shambles, Pakistan will always be considered a liability by our rich Arab brothers.

And focusing on the former lines is very hard for emotional Pakistanis. For example, the way public wants our country to challenge the might of the USA in its war on Iraq is sickening. Also, raising the issue of Ummah every now and then and in each and every TV program (all channels) makes me sick. I think that we need to send all Pakistanis on a week long orientation program to Gulf countries for a reality check so that they are able to see the respect that Pakistanis have in Arab countries.

``Do I hear the words, ``Tehrik-i-Insaaf`` being whispered somewhere over the horizon........:)``

Please don`t have many expectations from Imran Khan. He has finally decided to tow the line of the MMA and has actually begun to look more of an MMA Mulla than a Change Manager that he would have liked to be. With each of his sentence starting from ``hamaari asl budkismati yeh hay kay ...`` I think he is not able to figure out where to lay the blame on and from where to start the change from if he is elected to power.

#1 by ahmadzai on April 1, 2003 10:25am PT

Let us make Pakistan into an economic and military force and become a role model for other Muslim countries to show them the light.

------
I think that you are still barking up the wrong tree.

Economic power comes from first educatoin, freeing the socitey from schism, allowing fair business envoriment and most of all a enforceable law system, a system in which all people not only feel safe but feel they have as much a chance as the other.

This route to economic power is stable and will bring continuing rewards.If it was just economic power then Saudi would have become a big power.

A much smaller Iran (population wise)has a better chance than pakistan at present. Its education level is high It has a enforceable law system. It has good oil reserves. The socitey is taking up its issues and tackling them inclluding issues of women, role of religion and the extent it should play a role in the life of the socitey.


But pakistan can attempt to change the scenario. At least in the past it had many advantages a large labour force in Gulf bringing in Remittences, US which was financing a good chunk of its miitary budget. I could have really focussed on changing the face of its socitey.

However It remaines unchanged. The fedual structrue inherited remains intact. The langauage/ethnic shchism remains intact with punjabis being the favoured people. Most of the economic power remains in hands of a handful of families. All attention on Kashmir leads the Army to dominate in public life. There is no muslim alternative to the socicalism practiced by nehru. He broke the landed class in India to a large extent. It is only when the control of economic recources is widely distributed that people are able to take on a competitive role in economic activity. Saudi arabia despite its wealth has not been able to come up with a vibrant socitey for this reason. Without economic incentive people tend to become complacent.
It still has a chance. It could ally again with Saudi Arabia, and Iran, Provide stability in the region by negotating in Kashmir and thus playing a responsible role in Afghanistan. Its subustantial population is a plus and it is capable of sustaining itself in agriculturaly.
In fact there is already a nation which the muslims can follow ie Malaysia. though not very powerful it is on the right path to development. Only It seems to lack the intecuall development that is required for producing people of science though it is good in technology. This does benifit Malaysia much but the bigger benift is to the people who own the technonlgyie the western countries. Being a manufacturing base is not enough you have to innovate and be leaders in some key technogies.

However it all starts with building a equitable and responsible socitey. Kashmirs will do alright for themselves there is no need to worry about them. It is important to make the social transformation first and that is unlikely to happen until the Military and the Religous right call the shots.


Sustainable economic power will lead to strong military just plain economic power and military power will lead to nothing.