The Political Ummah

By Rafia Zakaria

In a recent article entitled “Clash of the Uncivilized” Imam Zaid Shakir, a convert to Islam and the quintessential “western” Muslim lamented the uncivilized barbarity of the uneducated throngs of eastern Muslims who took to rioting in the streets in the wake of the Danish cartoon controversy. In a sulky and near petulant tone, the Imam writes that “we Muslims in the West” were “not consulted” before the launching of the campaign that has brought such shame and ignominy on us His diatribe against the rowdy, unthinking “eastern Muslims” doesn’t end there, at the end of his article he concludes that the time has come for “western Muslims” “to go it alone”, and to reject affiliation with those whose “ill-considered actions” only undermine the work of the industrious well-meaning Muslims who “do not have the luxury of losing themselves in a frenzied mob”.

The Imam’s characterization of eastern Muslims is both troubling and representative of the increasingly common condescension of Islamic leaders in the West. Arguably, there are good reasons for this sudden proclivity to disassociate from the allegedly uncivilized and supposedly unthinking eastern Muslims. In a recent survey released on March 9, 2006 the Washington Post reported that in the aftermath of the cartoon controversy, nearly half or 46% of Americans had a “negative view of Islam”, a number ten points higher than in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks. Across the Atlantic the aftermath of the cartoon controversy has similarly produced increased suspicion regarding the ability of Muslim immigrants to integrate into European society. On March 16, 2006 the Netherlands put into effect a new immigration test, preparation for which requires would-be immigrants to watch a film that has footage of nude beaches and homosexual men kissing. Many have pointed out to the film as a covert attack against perceived Muslim intolerance and an attempt to discourage Muslim immigrants to the country. Undoubtedly, the recent row over cartoons has and will have future consequences for minority Muslim populations in the West.

All of these developments are predictable, what is unexpected and disturbing is that instead of much needed soul searching into their own communities; some western Muslims are choosing to lay blame on the supposedly “uncivilized” Muslims in the east. This disturbing turn, represented so glaringly in the words of Imam Zaid Shakir is particularly revealing of the deeper ideological struggles facing Western Muslims. First, it is incontrovertible that it was in fact western Muslims who initiated the campaign to publicize the blasphemous cartoon among Muslims in the east. As is now public knowledge, Ahmed Akkari and Imam Ahmad- Abu-Laban who spearheaded the campaign of mobilizing public opinion in Muslim countries, were overtly and quite intentionally seeking the support of the very throngs of unthinking, inconsiderate masses whose actions are now considered such a source of shame by Western-Muslim leaders. Even a cursory perusal of the forty page Akkari-Laban dossier that was used to publicize the issue among the Organization of Islamic Conference in Mecca in December reveals it to be a calculated effort by a Muslim minority to rally the support of Muslim majorities in the east and make the cartoon issue one of global importance. As has been pointed out by several news publications, the contents included not only the blasphemous cartoons printed by the Jyllands-Posten but also other randomly selected cartoons. One of these random incendiary selections was a picture from a French pig squealing contest that had absolutely nothing to do with the either Muslims or the cartoon issue.

If it is true that the Danish Imams campaign was an intentional and calculated search for global support then such a reality poses troubling questions regarding the relationship between “eastern” and “western” Muslims. The most pressing of these is whether the easily angered and difficult to control mobs of the Muslim world are simply political pawns before their rabble rousing western counterparts? Were the emotions of “eastern Muslims” intentionally exploited by the Danish Muslim activists who were only too aware of the reaction the cartoons would elicit from Muslim publics? Interpreted such, the question becomes one not of the transcendent spiritual solidarity that unites eastern and western Muslims, but the calculated political manipulation of one by the other. The Ummah thus denigrated to a political tool loses its spiritual sanctity and becomes a mere tool of strategic mass mobilization. In the Western democratic world where votes mean everything, the numerical Muslim minority needed Muslims in the east to make a statement to their own governments regarding their ability to mobilize Muslims internationally. The cartoons themselves represented a convenient visible flashpoint of a larger campaign motivated as much by political opportunism as by genuine outrage against the cartoons.

Unfortunately, for Western Muslims it was a political calculation that backfired and left them mired in the detritus of an even deeper mire of suspicion and xenophobia. As news clips of angry mobs of rioters burning embassies and torching Danish flags began to dominate Western television screens many realized the colossal political blunder. The rhetoric of western Muslim leaders changed drastically and those who had organized protests their communities in Europe and the United States began to berate the actions of eastern Muslim mobs. Danish Muslims, those most heavily invested in the controversy issued statements asking for calm and for an end to the boycott to Danish products which they belatedly realized would impact their own livelihood. At this late point in the controversy, western Muslims seemed suddenly to realize that they stood to lose most from the situation. The mobs in Lebanon, Pakistan, Syria and Iran lived in nations already bowed under the heavy weight of western sanctions and with little to lose. They, on the other hand, as partakers of the bounty of the Western world, stood to pay for the affronts on embassies and flags in jobs lost, promotions foregone and businesses closed.

The about turn in rhetoric and the disavowal of a campaign that originated in the West is emblematic of the identity crisis brewing amid Western Muslims torn between being western citizens and believing Muslims. In keeping with their roots in Third world countries most cling to an identity that presents itself as beleaguered and oppressed and stridently ignores the reality of their economic superiority over eastern Muslims who remain in Third world countries. Their position as economically advantaged beneficiaries of farm subsidies, export controls and the near decadent social welfare policies of the West is a form of superiority rarely discussed in the discourse surrounding the global Ummah that resonates through the mosques and Islamic centers of Europe and the United States. Another conveniently ignored facet is the reality that most Western Muslims are voluntary immigrants who willingly left their Muslim countries to live and work in the West. This fact implies a rejection of the Muslim homeland that is difficult for most Western Muslims to grapple with in terms of their conscience and their general distaste at the cultural practices of their new western homelands. While many admittedly left due to economic pressures created at least in part due to the historical legacy of colonialism, the fact remains that they prioritized economic gain over living in a Muslim culture. This voluntary relegation of Muslim culture to second choice is something devastatingly disconcerting to most Western Muslims.

The intellectual burdens of such conflicting desires were recently discussed in a discussion between Tarek Ramadan, the Muslim philosopher who advocates the development of a “European Islam” and Dyab Abou Jahjah, a strong anti-assimilationist and the founder of Belgium’s “Muslim Democractic Party”. In response to Ramadan’s prescription to European Muslims to accept the culture of their respective homelands and recognize the fact that they are Dutch, French or Norwegian, Abou Jahjah responded to Ramadan by saying that such recognition would mean an abandonment of the reality of third world oppression “which is real” and must be engaged despite the fact that European Muslims are obviously no longer a geographic part of it. Undoubtedly, most immigrant Western Muslims are economically far better off than the relatives they left behind in Tunisia, Egypt or Pakistan and despite lamenting the rampant discrimination leveled at them, few “western” Muslims choose to return to their countries of origin. They remain, in Berlin and Oslo, Rotterdam and Paris but stand suspended in an unfortunate ideological limbo, their connections with their past rendered increasingly tenuous with the passage of time while the connections with their new homeland remain fragile and poisoned by their suspicion of and disdain for Western culture. Embroiled themselves in this contradictory pull on loyalties, Western Muslim leaders, like Abou Jahjah adopt a duplicitous and self serving stance that deliberately masks the relative economic advantages enjoyed by Western Muslims and seeks instead to capitalize on painting western Muslims as a hapless minority completely dependent on the Muslim Ummah for political support. The Ummah is thus conveniently reduced to a political tool to be used at will to intimidate the Western governments and force them to pay attention to their Muslim minorities. Indeed, the cause itself is just but the means utilized are suspect. If the political rhetoric backfires as it did in the aftermath of the Danish cartoons, the political solidarity of the Ummah vanishes and eastern Muslims become “uncivilized” mobs who enjoy the “luxury of losing themselves in a frenzied mob.

This existential struggle between reaping economic benefits while not making sacrifices based on religious identity is also ostensibly the root of increasing radicalism among Western Muslims. Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi, a cleric enjoying cult like popularity among British Muslims instructs western Muslims to “have a small society within the larger society” and to “try to have your own Muslim ghetto”. In a recent compilation of fatwas published by the Message of Islam organization out of Middlesex England, Muslims are admonished among other things to never call non-Muslims “brother”, to never offer best wishes to non-Muslims on Christmas and New Year, to never take out insurance policies and to forbid women from working in environments where they may “come into contact with non-Muslim men”. Essentially the message is, refuse to interact with the culture around you and actively create an Islamic sub-culture that allows you to distance yourself from the country in which you live. What emerges is an elaborate rationalization that allows them to overcome the guilt of having abandoned Islamic societies for economic gain by creating barriers to interaction with the larger western culture. As these immigrant Muslims populations age and their connections to their home culture become increasingly tenuous, they stand the risk of devolving into individuals that have faith but no culture.

If Western Muslims hope to emerge from the political quagmire they now find themselves in they must confront crucial questions that necessitate both choices and acknowledgments. They must wrestle with the exact nature of their relationship with eastern Muslims and decide whether it implicates a true sense of loyalty and community that transcends political expedience or is simply a fertile ground for political manipulation. They must also come to terms with the legal reality of carrying citizenship documents that place them with the world’s privileged rather than with the world’s wanting and acknowledge the rights and privileges this status bestows on them. Perhaps in engaging in this painful and potentially revelatory self-reflection western Muslims will realize the imperialist assumptions inherent in using eastern Muslims as pawns and embrace the Ummah as a spiritual community and not a political tool.

Rafia Zakaria is an attorney currently completing her Ph.D in Political Science at Indiana University Bloomington. She is from Karachi, Pakistan and serves on board of “ibtida” an NGO that builds and operates schools in rural Pakistan. Her articles have appeared in Frontline, India and The Friday Times in Pakistan.