NO ONE SPEAKS FOR ALL MUSLIMS
Amir Taheri
October 29, 2003 -- A FEW months ago, during a meeting with Mahathir Mohamed in London, I asked the 77-year-old politician what he intended to do after retiring as prime minister of Malaysia this October. He said he had not decided, and asked whether I had any ideas. I thought he might make a good roving ambassador for Islam. "Oh, no," he responded. "I won't be any good. I cannot control my tongue."
This month, Mahathir proved that his self-assessment was right. In a speech at the 10th Islamic summit in Kuala Lumpur, he began by urging Muslims to abandon violence and to embrace the modern world. But then he went on to claim that the modern world, which he had lavishly praised, had been created by the Jews who also continue to rule it. This was typical Mahathir.
The reaction to it was also typical. The Bush administration instantly came out with outright condemnation. The British expressed dismay and regret. The European Union, persuaded by French President Jacques Chirac (who did not wish to sound like the Americans), decided not to react.
That is understandable. What is not understandable is that many commentators in the West, especially in the United States, have presented Mahathir as a spokesman for the Muslim world as a whole. Mahathir has no such position.
One difficulty in the so-called "dialog of civilizations" is that many in the West try to understand Islam in Christian terms. This is partly a problem of semantics. The term Christendom defines the existential reality of Christian states, while the term Christianity defines the religion of Christ. There are no equivalent terms to distinguish Islam as a religion from the existential reality of 57 Muslim states.
Another difficulty is that many Westerners cannot conceive of a religion without a formal structure resembling a church, and no clergy resembling the Christian priesthood. In Islam, however, there is neither church nor clergy in the Christian sense.
There are, to be sure, large numbers of mullahs, muftis, moulawis and other individuals who earn a living by offering religious opinions. But they have no sacerdotal mandate. There is no mechanism through which any particular opinion could be presented as that of all, or even a substantial number, of Muslims.
The problem is compounded by the fact that we have a large number of organizations using the "Islamic" label.
Mahathir was addressing a summit of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). His speech was broadcast by the Islamic News Agency. There are a dozen more "Islamic" outfits. These are all political organizations that operate in a perfectly secular manner and must be regarded as parts of the paraphernalia of international diplomatic, cultural and economic relations. What they say and do may reflect the views of Islamdom, to coin a phrase, but not necessarily of Islam as a faith.
The West's perplexity is understandable. And the confusion will continue for as long as we use the label Islamic where it is not warranted.
It is also a fact that anyone who tries to understand the policies of any Muslim country in strictly religious terms would reap nothing but confusion. The Kuala Lumpur summit made that amply clear.
Russia, which has massacred more Muslims in Chechnya than all the victims of all the Arab-Israeli wars, was admitted as an associate member of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. Russian President Vladimir Putin received a hero's welcome in Malaysia.
India, which has the world's second-largest population of Muslims, was refused even as an observer because Pakistan was against it. The Turkish Cypriot government was also shut out because Greece, which backs the Greek Cypriot government, has always supported the Arab position on Palestine.
Muslim states behave like any other state - that is to say, in accordance with real or imagined geopolitical and other secular interests, and not on the basis of any religious agenda.
No, Mahathir was not talking on behalf of Islam. He was talking as a political leader who happens to be a Muslim, in a country where non-Muslims account for nearly half the population. Some Muslims liked what he said, and some did not.
But this could be true of a statement made by any politician anywhere in the world.
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/9335.htm Iraq attacks carried out by supporters of "occupation"
TEHRAN, Oct 29, (AFP) -- Iran's Foreign Minister Kamal Kharazi has reasoned that a string of devastating bombings in and around the Iraqi capital have been carried out by those seeking to prolong the US occupation of the country, the official news agency IRNA reported.
Describing the situation in neighbouring Iraq as "dangerous", Kharazi said "the attack against the International Committee of the Red Cross was launched by those who want the occupation forces to stay in Iraq".
IRNA did not say if Kharazi elaborated on the comment, although he was quoted as calling for a rapid transfer of sovereignty to Iraqis and a central role for the United Nations.
The United States blames a combination of supporters of ousted president Saddam Hussein and foreign fighters possibly linked to the al-Qaeda network.
http://www.iranmania.com/News/ArticleView/Default.asp?NewsCode=19147&NewsKind=Current%20Affairs