 |
| From L. clockwise: King Abdulaziz, Saladin, Imadaddin Zengi and Abu Hamed al-Ghazali |
This
think piece was penned in
Arabic for al-Hayat daily by
Jamal Khashoggi, the Saudi journalist now heading Saudi billionaire Prince
Walid bin Talal’s Arabic news channel Al Arab launching at year’s end:
Why do many present-day Islamist movements always seek their
own demise?
Why do they consistently insist on “all or nothing”?
Salafist jihadism today
matches India’s Deobandi movement.
Salafis today are not even one.
It was King Abdulaziz, founder of the Saudi state that
celebrated its 82nd National Day recently, who revived contemporary
Salafism. He was a true Salafi, but he was also a politician who cajoled the
big shots and cultivated the minnows but always came out on top.
Before the distortion of Salafism and jihad through
abuse by ultraconservatives of these two noble traits of Muslims, every Muslim
activist sought to reconcile Salafism, or faith advocacy, and jihad.
Salaheddin el-Ayyoubi, better known in the Western
world as Saladin, and Imadaddin Zengi
before him, were like that – Salafi jihadists. Both used beyond measure tactics
of modern-day Islamist movements to mobilize the faithful for jihad.
They propagated jihad through preachers and orators
-- not only in mosques on Fridays but at all times and on all occasions.
They built efficient local administrations in
Damascus, Aleppo and Cairo. They were merciful to people and gracious in their
sermons.
They were benign in their promotion of virtue and prevention
of vice.
They were also ruthless when they needed to.
Imadaddin Zengi was hard-hearted when fighting local
leaders.
Saladin was not, by today’s standards, a democrat or
believer in freedom of opinion and expression. Once he prevailed in Egypt
(after overthrowing the Shiite Fatamids), he restored Sunnite orthodoxy in the
country and stamped out Shiite jurisprudence in al-Azhar. (That’s why Saladin
is more of a hero in the Arab world than in Iran). His strategic move bore a
resemblance to the Islamist movements of the day, particularly the line of
theologian Abu Hamed
al-Ghazali as expressed in his writings, specifically his book “The Revival
of Religious Sciences.”
In the end, Imadeddin Zengi and Saladin succeeded in
building two nation-states that outlived them by years.
They laid the foundations for an Islamic revival movement.
In addition to introducing administrative reform, they handed down a plethora
of schools, hospitals, markets, castles and public facilities that are still
standing today. (Some of these are currently being pulverized by the Syrian
regime’s tanks and warplanes).
In other words, Zengi and Saladin did not simply lead
a fleeting protest movement such as al-Qaeda and the likes that always seek their
own demise.
In modern history, Abdulaziz al-Saud emulated
Zengi and Saladin.
He surrounded himself with local leaders who outmatched
him in wealth, political maneuver and international connections.
He was fenced in by a Great Power when turning east,
south, north or even west to look across the sea to Egypt.
He also had to put up with a group seeking it own
demise. His valiant military commander Faisal al-Dwaish kept
striving to challenge the British, who were then protectors of the Gulf, Iraq
and Transjordan.
Dwaish ultimately defied his leader and ended up
dying in jail with history remembering his insubordination more than his
military heroics.
I remembered King Abdulaziz when hearing the leader
of Somalia’s al-Shabab
pledge that his militiamen won’t stop their advance before reaching Nairobi and
Addis Ababa, having overcome Ethiopian forces in their country in 2006.
Al-Shabab could have instead focused on building
Somalia and sinking their roots deeper at home. Had they done that, they would
probably have been ruling a stable and secure Somalia. The leader in question
might have been negotiating with the Dubai Port Authority to build a port in
Kismayo followed by a franchise fishing deal with a Japanese company.
Instead, he said last week his Islamist militants
were abandoning their last major bastion, Kismayo.
This makes me wonder again: Why do many modern-day
Islamist groups always seek their own demise?
They antagonize everyone far and near as soon as they
score a victory.
In Libya, they trumped their opponents by joining the
revolution. They then proceeded to desecrate graves at (Commonwealth) war
cemeteries and attack the U.S. embassy.
By so doing they turned people against them,
eventually losing their reputation, their weapons and their camps.
In Tunisia, they were released from jail, had a taste
of freedom and enjoyed it, then abused it and decided that Tunisians, as
apprentices in modernity, needed guidance. Those were the same Tunisians who a month
earlier had voted into power a moderate Islamist party. They ended antagonizing
Tunisians and their government who subsequently demanded their eradication.
In Yemen, they absented themselves from the
transition process that removed the tyrant they were fighting. They failed to appreciate
that the sea change taking place in the country presented them with an
opportunity to end their cocooning. Instead, they want their jihad to last for
all eternity. Their latest reaction was a suicide bombing in Abyan.
In Egypt, they stand out as first class debaters.
They joined the constitution-drafting body (otherwise known as the Constituent
Assembly). Instead of leaving their imprint on a historic legacy, they focused
on such trivialities, as “girls can be married as soon as they reach puberty.”
They will surely pay the price of their idiocy at the next elections.
I can go on recounting innumerable telltales from
Mali, Afghanistan, Iraq and my own homeland Saudi Arabia. The self-interest of
present-day Islamist movements invariably takes priority over the interests of
the public.
In truth, these militant movements mandate acts of
suicide in combat but take their own life in politics.
