Al-Hayat
Hazem Saghieh
The critics and opponents of orientalism should forgive me if I have seen an intensive, mass reinforcement of some of what some orientalists have said, and been blamed for saying. In Jakarta, Indonesia, the Hizb al-Tahrir al-Islami has succeeded in grouping 80,000 people calling for the revival of the Caliphate. Ten thousand people gathered for the same purpose in the town of Bireh, on the West Bank.
Of course, those who assembled did not notice that the Islamists of Turkey itself, under the pressure of direct experience, stopped calling for the Sultanate or Caliphate a long time ago; they didn't notice that the Palestinians' present concern, which is becoming more difficult, involves the establishment of a small Palestinian state, and not the revival of a wide-ranging political entity.
Thus, we can expect that a party like Tahrir Islami, which marks "Mustafa Kemal Ataturk's destruction of the Caliphate" every year, will become stronger and enhance its standing among the masses, from Palestine to Indonesia. We can also believe that a demand such as "reviving the Caliphate" will spread and expand. In light of shrinking horizons for the future, what remains is only getting stuck in the sands of the dead past and returning, a second or third time, to the first beginning.
In fact, the anger at the modern world, which is led by the west, and the revulsion at the huge historic transformation over which no one has control, are some of the elements that explain the phenomenon that we are currently experiencing, including terror. The pursuit of force and resistance are what make the revival of the Caliphate a demand, just as its fall is presented as a qualitative move from unity to division, and from greatness to deterioration and decay. In the path of this pursuit, we observe the drawing up of ideal models for how to be strong in the modern world. However, adopting the option of the Sultanate does not lead anyone to remember that this "strong" state was forced by its weakness to the Tanzimat reforms and the Constitution of Hikmat Pasha, before Sultan Abdel-Hamid turned on him. The military awe of this state did not prevent the import of railroads and schools, as its people sought to contact and be in contact, or see its children learn, and teach their children. In the end, the difficult test of this military might came in World War I, when the Ottoman Empire collapsed against this same force. Ataturk only translated and institutionalized the situation.
Having a taste for models relying on the force that they enjoy, in isolation from the economy, education and health, is like relying on two arms while the head is damaged and the rest of the body is tottering. Even in a case such as this, weakness must be reflected, sooner or later, in the "strong" arms, which become weak.
This is what we see today in the case of a country such as Syria, whose name only comes up in talk of war, or the possibility of war, "conspiracies," and "confronting" them, or with Iran, whose Social Affairs Minister Abdel-Rida Masri says that more than 9 million of his countrymen live under the poverty line, forming 10.5% of the urban population of that oil-rich country, and 11% of the rural population. The official numbers state that the country has 3 million unemployed people and inflation has reached 14.8%. The legislature's Research Center estimates that over the last year, inflation has stood at 22.4%.
A few months ago, reports surfaced indicating a decline in Iran's ability to produce oil since the technologies it uses are becoming run-down, the spare parts it needs are difficult to obtain, and skilled workers and employees are being lost. But none of these things worries those who are promised a nuclear bomb!
Trackback(0)
|
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Show/hide comment form