By Osama El-Ghazali Harb * The Islamic world is at and critical juncture. This stage has a significance comparable to that of the Crusades, the exodus from Andalusia or the fall of the Ottoman Empire. The contradictions besieging the Islamic world make this stage especially critical, as do the dramatic changes in the world order, which have placed the Islamic nations at the crossroads of confrontation. After the resounding collapse of the Soviet Union, the world order changed radically and the United States became the sole leader of an order that is as yet undefined. In this new order, the Islamic world has become part of an underdeveloped South in confrontation with the advanced North. The dramatic shift in the international order, from East-West ideological opposition to North-South economic confrontation, has recently been curtailed for a number of reasons. A glance suffices to show that this confrontation primarily opposes the West, led by the US, to the Islamic world. After the sudden disappearance of the old enemy that had for so long occupied the West's military forces and intelligence services, a new enemy had to be created: armies had to be mobilised, think-tanks created and weapons technology elaborated. The Islamic world was the ideal enemy: both necessary and available. The great majority of Islamic countries suffered for decades under the yoke of Western imperialism; following independence, they traversed a series of unsuccessful development experiments, which paved the way for the development of political Islam, presenting itself as a successful and credible alternative. Some elements of this movement proved extremely antagonistic towards the West, deemed to be the sole reason for the backwardness of Muslims and the permanent frustration of their hopes and ambitions. In a nutshell, the Muslims were perfectly willing to be the enemy the West sought. Since the early '90s, many attempts have been made to define the "Islamic threat" and to depict the Muslim world as a source of real or potential danger to the West. Foreign policy institutions, intelligence bureaus, research centres and universities contributed millions of pages to the definition of that danger. The most conspicuous attempt in this respect, however, was contributed by Samuel Huntington, an American political scientist whose article on the "clash of civilisations", later expanded into book form, was debated in the West and the Islamic world. Here in Egypt, and perhaps in the entire Arab world, we have paid more attention to the philosophical and intellectual aspects of Huntington's argument than to its political and strategic significance, which is to formulate and justify the idea of the "Islamic threat" as the West's greatest enemy. Huntington is only one of the great many Western researchers and journalists concerned with the "Islamic threat". According to him and several others, some Westerners believe that no problems exist between the West and the Islamic world, and that only radical Muslim terrorists represent any danger. He argues, however, that 14 centuries of Muslim-Christian relations have been stormy, and that discord, not harmony, is therefore the rule. Indeed, he argues that the conflict between liberal democracy and Marxism-Leninism that has so marked the twentieth century was only a transient and artificial phenomenon compared with the profound, centuries-long conflict between Islam and Christianity. Referring to the "bloody borders of Islam", Huntington states explicitly that Muslims, who constitute one fifth of the world's population, have been the principal culprits in acts of terrorism during the present decade. Huntington's analysis is perhaps one of the most explicit formulations in recent attempts to fabricate the myth of the Islamic threat. Non-governmental organisations, governments and political forces, seeking for a number of reasons to turn world opinion away from the injustices committed in many other parts of the world, have contributed to this mobilisation against Islam. While many Western thinkers and politicians, as well as the Jewish lobby, are interested in magnifying the "Islamic threat", many Islamist organisations and Muslim nations, along with many political forces that adhere to extremism in the name of Islam, have reinforced the idea that Islam, and Muslims everywhere, are engaged in a continuous, violent battle against the West, and particularly the US. Only radical Islamist groups that denounce modernity as materialistic, atheist and inherently evil, disregard human rights, and view freedom and enlightenment as delusions can be heard today. The rulers of Afghanistan and Sudan speak of destruction in the name of Islam. "Islamic regimes" are archetypes of corruption and inefficiency, yet insist on defining themselves as Muslim. Only the most radical slogans are in evidence; millions of Muslims throughout the world are silent. Paradoxically, therefore, the opponents of Islam, as well as organisations and governments that describe themselves as Islamic, are contributing to a common cause: the isolation of Muslim societies, and the creation of confrontations with the "Christian" West, and with the rest of the world. Several recent events would seem to corroborate the idea that the Islamic world does pose a serious threat to "civilisation". Many Muslims, for instance, hailed the Pakistani atomic tests as the birth of the "Islamic bomb". The hope that we, too, could benefit from advanced weapons technology led many Muslims to forget that this was a Pakistani bomb, serving Pakistan's national objectives, not a means of defence for Muslims everywhere. If some Pakistanis spoke of the "Islamisation of the bomb", they merely intended to mobilise moral and perhaps material support against the consequences of international sanctions -- nothing more. Huntington's comment on the Pakistani bomb was quite interesting. He felt the tests had confirmed his argument that the clash between Islamic and Hindu civilisations had replaced the ideological confrontation of the Cold War as a basic feature of conflict in today's world. In one sentence, the antagonism bred by the tests had become a conflict between India and the entire Islamic world. Hostility and animosity between the Islamic nations and the rest of the world also make it easy to attribute any act of terrorism to Islamist activists. Even President Clinton, usually so keen to specify that Islam and Muslims are not the targets of the US's "war on terrorism", has implied indirectly that the confrontation with Islam is intensifying. The bombings in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam are also intended to expand the front of hostilities to the African continent. At this decisive moment, forces hostile to Islam, in conjunction with some Muslim groups, have created a state of strife in which the Islamic world is pitted against the rest of the international community. Is the destiny of millions of Muslims to be shaped by the follies and illusions of Bin Laden, Al-Bashir, the Taliban and Huntington? Reconciliation must replace animosity: but who will take the initiative? * The writer is the editor-in-chief of Al-Siyasa Al-Dawliya (International Politics) journal, issued by Al-Ahram. organization.
