Something rich and strange
Shusha Guppy
ISLAM AND THE MYTH OF CONFRONTATION by Fred Halliday I. B. Tauris, £12.95, pp. 256 Since the second world war the Middle East has been the scene of continuous conflict. For decades it was one of the major theatres of the Cold War, with Russia trying to breach American hegemony and secure a foothold in the oil- rich region. It was commonly believed that if ever the third world war broke out, it would ignite and play itself out on the shores of the Persian Gulf.
Yet although the configuration of the players in the field changed often with regional alliances and quarrels, the basic pattern remained stable. This was largely due to Iran under the Shah: with the biggest and best-equipped army in the region, the Shah's pro-American stance, and his even-handed policy towards Israel, Iran held a certain balance in the predomi- nantly Arab Middle East.
With the revolution of 1979 which toppled the Shah and brought Khomeini to power the equilibrium was broken, and a new phenomenon entered the international political arena: 'Islamic' Fundamentalism.
Few students of the Middle East are better qualified to negotiate its tricky political maze than Fred Halliday. He speaks Persian and Arabic, has a deep understanding of Middle Eastern societies, and he has lived in and written several books on specific countries. The present volume is a lucid analysis of the contempo- rary Middle East within the broader con- text of international relations, the subject he teaches at the LSE.
. Since the demise of Communism and the rise of Islamic Fundamentalism 'Islam' has come to be perceived as the arch-enemy of the West. Talk about the 'clash of civilisa- tions' and of an apocalyptic collusion in the future mirrors the discourse of the Cold War, while the hollow anti-Western rhetoric of Muslim militants and the many problems besetting the region — the Gulf War, the Arab-Israel conflict, the 'Rushdie Affair' and Human Rights violations — are perceived as the influence of Islam on Muslim societies. Islam is supposed to be incompatible with democracy, and to breed violence and stagnation.
Professor Halliday cuts through these fears and prejudices, of both East and West, like a jungle explorer wielding a machete. He begins by emphasising the dis- tinction between Islam and 'Islam' — the former a revealed religion practised by over one billion Muslims throughout the world, the latter a social and political system, manipulated by tyrants and demagogues of all hues. It is this second `Islam' that concerns him.
The first 'myth' he refutes is that the Middle East is a unified whole, a 'unique case quite different from the rest of the world and incomprehensible to outsiders'. He maintains that the Middle East consists of varied societies at different stages of development, beset by the same problems as other Third World countries — corrup- tion, tyranny, waste. Nor is 'Islam' a unitary system applied in all Islamic countries. Tolerant, multi-ethnic Bosnia, Fundamen- talist Saudi Arabia, EEC candidate Turkey and revolutionary Iran are all Islamic countries.
Yet both Western orientalists and Arab nationalists claim that the Middle East can- not be judged by Western values, be these human rights, or women's rights, or free- dom of expression. Halliday believes that certain 'anti-imperialist solidarity groups' in the West have a moral relativism which condones grotesque practices like clitorodectomy and torture in some Arab countries. While 'diversity of voices is a reality, and a good one both within soci- eties and between them', there are univer- sal principles that apply to all human societies, such as basic human rights and the conduct of war. The record of most Middle Eastern countries in these areas is abysmal.
Halliday attacks the 'myth of confronta- tion' between Islam and the West from both sides: in the West those who wish to turn Islam into another enemy replacing communism (in particular the powerful armament industry interests in advanced countries) and in the Middle East those Fundamentalists who advocate confronta- tion. The latter seem unaware that their very vocabulary is borrowed from Western political discourse — Nation, Sovereignty, Rights, Imperialism — and that 'The West versus the rest' arises from two different interpretations of Western political tradi- tion. While Khomeini refused to use the telephone because it was a Western gadget, his pronouncements were circulating in cassettes, and it was a Western jet that took him back to Iran.
Professor Halliday's analysis of the Gulf War is the most illuminating and painful I have read. Disregarding his appalling human rights record, the West armed Sad- dam Hussein to the teeth, backed him in his war with Iran — French pilots even flew his planes for him — and failed to stop him from invading Kuwait. They let him know that if he did not use chemical war-heads, he personally would be safe, which encour- aged him to take the gamble and attack. Finally they left him in power to continue tyrannising his own people.
This episode is an example of the 'double standards' for which Halliday castigates the West: while advocating human rights, Western countries, in particular the United States, have consistently supported oppres- sive regimes who flout them in the Middle East.
`Islamic' governments invoke the Sharia — Islamic Law — to justify repressive poli- cies and maintain power, but the Sharia unlike the Koran is not a sacred text, revealed and timeless, only a human con- struct. It was codified two centuries after the Islamic Revelation by jurists at the behest of despotic rulers. It was meant as a temporal guide, subject to interpretation and change. Invoking the Sharia to justify repressive measures, particularly against women, is contrary to the spirit and the tradition of Islam. Yet the West, while preaching 'gender equality' at home, has persistently supported 'Islamic' regimes, like Saudi Arabia's, where women are still in purdah, and deprived of such a simple freedom as driving a car — when the Sharia was devised in the 10th century, when there were no cars, only camels and horses which women rode as well as men.
The solution to the economic and social problems of the Middle East, Halliday believes, is for Islamic countries to follow the example of Far Eastern nations, includ- ing Muslim Malaysia and Indonesia: clean up their acts, forget about such meaning- less concepts as 'a third way' (there is no such thing as 'Islamic Economics'), devel- op, and compete with the rest of the world. After all they have the wherewithal: money and people. Masses of both.
Previous page
