“Throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.”
Barack Obama, 44th President of USA
THE year 1979 holds special importance. It was the year that saw two significant happenings in the Muslim world. The events occurred in two states holding contrasting views on Islam but triggered by a common enemy, the US. One was the hostage crisis in the Shiite ruled Iran, which was covered quite extensively by the press, the other being the lesser known and reported uprising at Islam’s holiest shrine in Mecca, the city under the control of Sunni Muslims.
There
was a fundamental difference though between the two events. The embassy
takeover in Tehran was a student initiative against the US for its
meddling in the country’s politics. The siege of Mecca was the rebellion
of a Muslim group against the policies of the ruling family in Saudi
Arabia which were influenced by the US.
The
rebellion in Mecca combined with the events in neighboring Iran forever
changed the equation of Muslims with the US, and the west in general.
Act I, Tehran
On
November 4, 1979, some 400 Iranian students decided to stage a sit-in
at the American embassy in Tehran. It was a demonstration both against
the Iranian Prime Minister Mehdi Bazargan’s meeting in Algiers with
Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter’s National Security advisor, to
discuss common security issues and the Shah’s admission to America for his cancer treatment.
The
protest soon turned into a takeover of the embassy and its staff as
more radical elements took over. The captives were paraded blindfolded
before the world’s media.
Ayatollah
Khomeni at first wanted the students to be taken out by force, but later
changed his mind riding on the popular mood and supported
their cause. He even denounced the embassy as a ‘nest of spies’. Con
Coughlin writes how it influenced the Islamic revolution in Iran, “The
American embassy siege proved to be a defining moment both for Khomeini
and the Islamic revolution. Whereas previously he had sought to control
the wilder excesses of the revolution, such as limiting the number of
executions, now he fully embraced the concept of revolutionary action,
and gave the student revolutionaries free rein to confront the negative
influences of imperialism, liberalism and democracy.”[1]
The
move was also initially opposed by two prominent student activists –
one of them (surprisingly) was Mahmoud Ahmadinejad from Tarbiat Modarres
University. Both eventually joined ranks with the majority.
Although the hostage crisis was a student initiative, it found mass support in Iran because of the role US played in the past politics of the country. America helped depose the elected and popular government of Mohammad Mosaddegh in 1953. Iranians never really forgave the US for it.
The embassy staff of 52 Americans was held hostage for a total of 444 days. It damaged relations between Washington and Tehran permanently.
Act II, Mecca
The Mecca uprising was the revolt of a group of Muslim extremists against their own rulers.
Juhayman
ibn Saif al Uteybi, a retired corporal in the Saudi National Guard, was
the chief architect of the events that unfolded in Mecca on November
20, 1979.
His role in the uprising
was an outcome of the anger that has been building inside him for some
time. Perhaps it’s not surprising then that his name itself means ‘Angry
Face’ in Arabic.
During the mid 1970s Juhayman lived in Medina trying to model his life on the ways of the Prophet 14 centuries earlier. He was not alone.
Robert
Lacey sheds light on such individuals, “Those who opted for
back-to-basics called themselves Salafi, because they sought to behave
as salaf, literally the pious ancestors of one of those three early
generations that were mentioned with such approval by the Prophet. A
group calling itself Al-Jamaa Al-Salafiya Al-Muhtasiba, “the Salafi
Group That Commands Right and Forbids Wrong,” had been active in Medina
for some time, and Juhayman joined it when he came to town, plugging
himself into some of the Kingdom’s strongest and most ancient traditions
of piety.”[2]
Medina’s Salafi Group was created around 1965.
For
Juhayman, wherever he looked he could detect bida’h (any Islamic
innovation). By now his rejectionist thinking found a few takers. They
started referring to themselves as Al-Ikhwan (the Brothers). The word
itself had a dangerous resonance with the Saudi past. It was also
Juhayman’s legacy.
A confrontation
with Sheikhs though resulted in the security forces running after the
Ikhwan for interrogation. Juhayman was on the run.
Unable to meet his followers, Juhayman turned to the written and spoken words. His printed words (“The Letters of Juhayman”) survived and have long influenced Muslim extremists over the years.
His
grievance was that al-Saud had exploited Islam to guarantee their
worldly interests, and have brought evil and corruption upon the Muslims
by paying allegiance to the Americans.
It
was in late 1978 that Juhayman started having dreams about the Islamic
Messiah – the Mahdi or rightly-guided one – who would come down to earth
to correct the problems of mankind. His dreams even revealed the
identity of the Mahdi as one of his own followers, Muhammad Abdullah Al-Qahtani. Juhayman soon married his sister.
This
was also the time when Juhayman was ready to confront the rulers by
violent means. His armed men took control of the Grand Mosque on the
First day of Muharram (first Islamic month) in the Islamic year 1400,
which translates to November 20, 1979.
The siege finally ended on December 4 as the last of the remaining rebels were captured by the government forces.
The
bitter struggle saw 127 government soldiers perish and 450 injured.
Some 117 rebels including Muhammad Abdullah were killed. Twenty six
worshippers also lost their lives.
The outcome surprised even Juhayman. Yaroslav Trofimov in his definitive account of the events says, “As Juhayman was led away, one of the officers asked him again why he had desecrated the holiest shrine. The reality of utter defeat began to sink in. “If I had known it would turn out this way, I wouldn’t have done it,” Juhayman muttered in response.”[3]
It would take several months to undo the physical damage to the Grand Mosque.
The Brothers in Islam
The founder of modern Saudi Arabia Abdul Aziz Ibn Saud was ably supported
by warriors from the Bedouin tribes who called themselves Al-Ikhwan.
For them to support the Saudi cause was to engage in Jihad and that made
them ferocious warriors.
As the
empire got established the Ikhwan were told to settle down peacefully.
But being the Bedouin warriors, they continued their raids suspecting
their former leader to have made peace with the British.
Abdul Aziz spent more than a year in vain to strike a deal with the Ikhwan. The showdown finally came in March 1929 in the open plain of Sibillah, north of Riyadh. The Ikhwan were given one last chance to surrender but they ignored and attacked. In response Aziz’s men opened fire. Hundreds of men and their camels perished that day.
Among those who survived the onslaught was Muhammad ibn Saif al-Uteybi, father to Juhayman.
Birth of Political Islam
The
siege of Mecca was the first major challenge to the ruling group in
Saudi Arabia since the Ikhwan rebellion. It brought into open the rising
tension between the state and its own religion.
Madawi Al-Rasheed explains, “It was vital to devise a formula for reconciling the state’s immense wealth with the austerity of Wahhabi* Islam. The incompatibility between religious dogma and royal pomp and the vulnerability of the royal family to attacks from within the ranks of the most loyal supporters (the religious establishment) shocked inside and outside observers who considered Saudi Arabia one of the most stable states in the Middle East. The constant search of the Saudi state for ways to accommodate the ‘old’ and the ‘new’ crumbled with the siege of the mosque.”[5]
It also forced the
rulers to grant more powers to the ulama (Islamic scholars) and Islamic
activities more political space in the early 1980s. The ulama seized the
opportunity to reinforce the strict Wahhabi rules on ritual observance
and moral behaviour.
It was also the
beginning of a new era where the banner of Islam was unfurled for
political means. Thomas Hegghammer talks about its ramifications,
“However, the ‘Wahhabism’ and the ‘pan-Islamisation’ of 1980 Saudi
Arabia represented two distinct processes with different causes and
results. While the first was a purely domestic process promoted by the
Najdi Wahhabi ulama and resulting in social conservatism, the latter had
international ramifications, was promoted by the Hijaz-based
organisations such as the Muslim World League (MWL) and produced
political radicalism. Nevertheless, both processes left more political
space for Islamist activism of all kinds. The political opportunity
structure for Islamist activists – especially those seeking to mobilise
people for the jihad in Afghanistan – thus became highly beneficial.”[6]
The
Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 prompted several Islamic
organisations to issue calls for jihad against the occupiers. This gave
the conflict a whole new religious dimension.
Saudi
involvement in Afghanistan was unprecedented and it exceeded even the
assistance for the Palestinians. It also saw the Kingdom graduate from a
passive and financial to an active and military approach to
pan-Islamism. This was made possible by US approval, the access to
Pakistani territory, and the willingness of the Afghans.
Iran,
sharing its border with Afghanistan, saw this as an opportunity to
increase its influence in the area. It backed the Afghan Northern
Alliance, which included the Shiite Hizb-l Vahdat representing the
Hazaras (a local minority Shia tribe).
The
invasion of Kuwait by Saddam Hussein forces gave another opportunity to
the fundamentalists. Fearing a possible Iraqi attack on its own soil,
Saudi Arabia welcomed foreign forces in 1990 to help defend the country.
This was also the time when some sahwa** members began to speak out
against the monarchy. Under pressure the government looked out for ways
to compensate the lost credibility.
The opportunity came in the form of the Bosnian war of 1992.
Saudi was not alone in making the most of it. Iran and Sudan, too, tried to exploit the Bosnian crisis to gain regional control.
In
fact Iran made good use of its long-standing links with Bosnian
political leaders to provide substantial material support for the war
ravaged country.
The roots of Political Islam were firmly established by now.
The Role of Wahhabism
The
rigid views of Wahhabism and the patronising it received from the Saudi
rulers in the past, fostered Muslim fundamentalism. The doctrine
considers Muslim sects like the Shiites and the Sufis as heretics. It
even inspired people like Juhayman to take up arms against the royal
family.
Although Juhayman was
beheaded soon after the uprising, his ideals and vision survived long
after. The baton was passed on to another misguided flag-bearer of
Islam, Osama Bin Laden. Like Juhayman, Osama too, had issues with Saudi
ties to the US.
It came as no
surprise to many that 15 of the 19 al-Qaida jihadists involved in the
9/11 attacks were from Saudi Arabia. The sad news was followed by a
discovery of a huge arms cache in Riyadh and subsequent attacks on
residential compounds in 2003. The terror continued in the country so
much that by the December of 2004, some 176 policemen and civilians
(mostly foreigners) had lost their lives.
The events showed a scary trend. The home-grown fundamentalists were turning into terrorists. The rulers of the state had to take swift and strict measures.
Dr. Sherifa Zuhur
gets the point across, “Saudi Arabian officials decried al-Qa’ida’s
actions in the United States, and have captured and killed operatives,
arrested more than 600 suspects, forced key clerical figures to recant
their radical views on television, recalled more than 1400 imams who
were counselled on their divergent opinions, and took a variety of
measures to diminish the financial support of terrorist organisations.
The government also announced modest political reforms that began with
voter registration from 2004-05, and municipal elections in 2005 which
will enhance political participation.” [7]
The
tentacles of the Osama factory are now reaching Iraq, Sudan, Somalia,
Yemen and Indonesia, among others. It misses no opportunity to unleash
terror on countries and people in the name of God.
The Israeli Angle
The
Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been the stumbling block in the
stability of Middle-East and a cause for Arabs to take up arms. For
years now it has been the driving force behind Muslim fundamentalism
across the globe.
The difficulty in resolving the issue has only frustrated the parties involved.
The
sad part is those who were once the land owners are now refugees in
their own land. More than 300,000 Jews immigrated to the then British
Mandated Palestine between 1923 and 1938. Now compare this with the 3.5
million Palestinians displaced because of the 1948 and 1967 upheavals
(500,000 alone during the Six-Day War in 1967).
Millions
of Palestinians refugees are today dispersed throughout the
Middle-East, many in camps in neighboring countries. They are still
searching for a way to coexist with the nation that is responsible for
the mess.
According to Amnesty
International 2011 Report, in 2010, Israeli authorities demolished 431
structures in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, a 59 per cent increase
over 2009. At least 594 Palestinians – half of them children – were
displaced, while more than 14,000 Palestinians were affected by
demolitions of water cisterns, wells and structures relating to their
livelihoods.
The Israeli military
killed 1,510 Palestinians in 2006-09. Of these, 617, including 104
children aged under 18, were not taking part in any hostilities when
they were killed.[16]
The Arab and Muslim worlds remain split between rejectionist forces and those willing to recognise Israel in the name of peace.
As
for Israel it continues to enjoy strong support from both the Democrats
and Republicans in the US. No US president ever questions the country’s
so-called security needs.
Both
Clinton and Bush failed to strongly take up the case of settlement
expansion and certain occupation practices, which have nothing to do
with security, with Israel.
Barack
Obama generated so much hope in the Muslim world with his landmark
speeches, but, he too couldn’t do much to help resolve the
Israeli-Palestine conflict.
Flawed US
policies in the past gave ample opportunities to other state actors
with their own agendas. Both Syria and Saudi Arabia attempted to broker a
Palestinian unity government without Washington’s help. Iran responded
by strengthening its ties to Syria and Hamas, thereby increasing its
influence in the region.
The Gaza
blockade and the Israeli West Bank barrier have only added to the woes
of Palestine. Indirectly it has fuelled the strong sentiments of the
Arabs and Muslims elsewhere against the state of Israel.
Engaging the Extremists
The
West over the years has followed a flawed policy of “engaging the
moderates and shunning the extremists.” You ignore a person and you
ignore his cause. By ignoring such individuals we harden their stand. It
makes them look out for alternate ways to make their voices heard.
Unfortunately, violence is one such means which makes maximum impact.
We
need to condemn violence in any form. No second thoughts there! We also
have to understand that killing one Osama Bin Laden would not help.
Osama has become more of a symbol of resistance to the so called
jihadists. You kill Osama and there are hundreds ready to take his place
and promote the cause.
Occupying
lands in the name of security threats will offer only temporary
solutions and would strengthen the resolve of the jihadists.
Incidentally it is also this angle which extremists, like Osama, relish.
In
an interview given to CNN in 1997 Osama said, “If there is a message
that I may send through you, then it is a message I address to the
mothers of the American troops who came here with their military uniform
walking proudly up and down our land while the scholars of our country
are thrown in prisons. I say that this represents a blatant provocation
to 1250 million Muslims. To these mothers I say if they are concerned
for their sons, then let them object to the American government’s policy
and to the American president. Do not let themselves be cheated by his
standing before the bodies of the killed soldiers describing the freedom
fighters in Saudi Arabia as terrorists. It is he who is a terrorist who
pushed their sons into this for the sake of the Israeli interest.”[9]
The
best way to approach them is to find their ideological mentors and
engage them. A dialogue on any given day is a much better start.
This in itself is no mean task and a definite policy shift has to be exercised in the name of peace by the West.
Bridging Divides
The
Muslims today are angry more than ever. But we need to separate anger
from madness (of a few). Wherever the anger is justified it needs
corrective measures.
1979 is history,
but it could very well repeat itself. And with the power of the
electronic media today the situation could be worse.
The
West for its part needs to engage the Muslims more than ever before.
Most importantly dialogues should be insulated from any act of violence.
As we have seen in the past, the rise of Islamophobia only helps the
extremists!
The US needs to rethink
its policy of dictating other countries’ affairs in the name of national
security. Afghanistan and Iraq are in a mess but the terror threat
continues, not to mention the millions who lost their lives and the
million others rendered homeless.
Sheikh
Salman al-Oadah echoes the sentiments of fellow Muslims in the region,
“And if the West considers September 11 as an affront to civil security
in the West, then we can share with it that feeling and even the stance
of rejecting attacks against civil security throughout the world. But it
is important for the West to realize that civil security in the Islamic
World has not seen stability for decades and a lot of the impediments
to civil security have come about under the umbrella of Western policy
and quite possibly due the direct actions of the West.” [10]
The
once mighty British Empire also collapsed under the pressure of putting
foot at too many places. You can’t win people over by occupying their
lands!
The Palestine-Israel conflict
is one issue that will influence any peace initiative between the
Muslims and the West. For long it has been a stumbling block in the
stability of the Middle East. You resolve that and half the work is
done.
The US handling of this crisis
also is faulty and needs serious rework. Daniel Kurtzer and Scott
Lasensky stress this point, “The United States also has tried mistakenly
to cherry-pick Palestinian negotiating partners, sometimes seeking to
bypass more senior figures whom Washington perceives as intransigent.
This approach tends to backfire; when we try to pick our winners, our
diplomacy often loses.”[11]
Israel has also to be pressured into an inspection of its nuclear arsenal.
The
two main players in the Middle-East, Iran and Saudi Arabia, influence
most of the Muslim world today. The tension between them is a direct
outcome of the desire to control the region and their different
religious beliefs. This is also a sad reflection of the divide between
the Muslims in general.
Saudi Arabia
needs to promote more tolerance in its society. An outright rejection of
beliefs not conforming to the majority is the first step in promoting
hatred. Qur’an itself speaks against it. In verse 118, chapter 11, the
books says, “If thy Lord had so willed, He could have made mankind one
People: but they will not cease to dispute.”
There is also no denying the fact that the Saudi society is gradually changing and the new rulers must be credited for it.
The
difficulty the rulers face is in striking a healthy balance between
admonishing the violent opposition and co-opting those with similar
views. Religious sensibilities have to be taken into due consideration
before making any policy shift.
This
is not an easy task as Madawi Al-Rasheed explains, “Saudi Arabia’s
specific Islamic tradition, namely Wahhabi teachings, did not encourage
an easy immersion in modernity in the twentieth century. From the very
beginning, the ruling group stumbled across several obstacles when they
introduced the most simple of technologies (for example cars, the
telegraph and television among other innovations). Objections from
conservative religious circles were overcome as a result of a
combination of force and negotiations. Social and political change
proved more problematic and could not be easily implemented without
generating debates that threatened the internal stability of the country
and alienated important and influential sections of society.”[5]
How successful would they be in the long run only time will tell!
The
Saudis need the US support to guard themselves against a powerful
neighbour in the form of Iran, something that has not gone down well with
many in the Kingdom.
Iran needs to engage in dialogues rather than raising tempers with the now familiar diatribe of Ahmadinejad.
There
are unsubstantiated claims by certain countries in the Middle East of
Iran’s role in their internal affairs. The country needs to put more
confidence building measures in the wake of its nuclear program.
Iran
is also facing some problems internally. Post election, as the events
at home show, there is a growing dissatisfaction of the young population
with the power the clergy enjoys. The Shah’s toppling was not possible
without the student uprising. Those in charge should never forget this
simple fact.
The US needs to respect
the regime in Iran (whosoever) and sit with it. Surely the lessons of
the past have not been learned. Stephen Kinzer endorses the view,
“Today, as anti-Iran rhetoric in Washington becomes steadily more
strident, it is urgent that Americans understand how disastrous the last
US attack on Iran turned out to be. They might also ponder the question
of what moral responsibility the United States has to Iran in the wake
of this painful history.”[12]
The answer to that has the potential to change US-Iranian relations.
Barack
Obama talked about a new beginning in his landmark speech given at the
Cairo University in 2009, “We have a responsibility to join together on
behalf of the world that we seek — a world where extremists no longer
threaten our people, and American troops have come home; a world where
Israelis and Palestinians are each secure in a state of their own, and
nuclear energy is used for peaceful purposes; a world where governments
serve their citizens, and the rights of all God’s children are
respected. Those are mutual interests. That is the world we seek. But we
can only achieve it together.”
The
average Muslim, too, is sick and tired of seeing his faith questioned
every time some extremist blow himself to pieces in the name of Allah.
They also seek a new start where they are free in their lands and are
judged by their own actions.
The world has seen enough violence in the name of religion and security. Let’s give peace a chance!
(Revised and updated: Oct 29, 2011)
Notes
*Members of the Wahhabi movement prefer to call themselves Muslims, or muwahhidun (those who insist on the unification of the worship of Allah) or Ahl (community of) At-Tawhid (Monotheism). The teachings of the reformer Abd Al-Wahhab are more often referred to by adherents as Salafi (“following the forefathers of Islam.”)
**Sahwa movement emerged in Saudi Arabia during the late 1960s. It was a well organised political movement that pride itself on religious orthodoxy.
1. Con Coughlin, Khomeini’s Ghost (London: Pan Macmillan, 2010), 177.
2. Robert Lacey, Inside the Kingdom: Kings, Clerics, Terrorists, Modernists, and the Struggle for Saudi Arabia (New York: Viking Penguin, 2009), 18.
3. The Siege of Mecca: The 1979 Uprising at Islam’s Holiest Shrine by Yaroslav Trofimov (New York: Anchor Books, 2008), 214.
4. As’ad AbuKhalil, The Battle for Saudi Arabia: Royalty, Fundamentalism, and Global Power (New York: Seven Stories Press, 2004).
5. Madawi Al-Rasheed, A History of Saudi Arabia (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 11.
6. Thomas Hegghammer, Jihad in Saudi Arabia: Violence and Pan-Islamism Since 1979 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 24.
7. Sherifa Zuhur, “Saudi Arabia: Islamic Threat, Political reform, and the Global War on Terror,” Strategic Studies Institute (2005), 13, accessed October 28, 2011, http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/display.cfm?PubID=598.
8. Noam Chomsky, Fateful Triangle: the United States, Israel, and the Palestinians (London: Pluto Press, Updated Edition, 1999).
9. “Osama bin Laden Interview – CNN,” FindLaw, accessed October 28, 2011, news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/binladen/binladenintvw-cnn.pdf.
10. Sheikh Salman al-Oadah, “How We Can Coexist”, Islam Today, Jan 01, 2002 , accessed October 28, 2011, http://en.islamtoday.net/artshow-417-2952.htm.
11. Daniel Kurtzer and Scott Lasensky, Negotiating Arab-Israeli Peace: American Leadership in the Middle East, (Washington: United States Institue of Peace, 2008), 38.
12. Stephen Kinzer, All the Shah’s Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror, (New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons), xxiii.
13. “A History of Conflict”, BBC, accessed October 28, 2011, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_ip_timeline/html.
14. Roland Jacquard, In the Name of Osama Bin Laden: Global Terrorism and the Bin Laden Brotherhood (USA: Duke University Press, 2002, Revised and Updated).
15. Mark Bowden, Guests of the Ayatollah: The Iran Hostage Crisis: The First Battle in America’s War with Militant Islam (New York: Grove Press, 2006).
16. “Amnesty International Annual Report 2011: The state of the world’s human rights,” Amnesty International, accessed October 28, 2011, http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/israel-occupied-palestinian-territories/report-2011#section-67-5.
