Calls for reform and change continue to dominate discussions and articles these days. Some view reform from a broad perspective while others look at it from a narrow one. Regardless of how reform and change could be achieved, one important fact has to be acknowledged: that both the government and the public agree on reform as a necessity — and this should be a source of great relief to every one.
Having said this, I believe we should be more concerned with the statements coming out of the United States, namely those echoed by the administration of President George Bush who has a different vision for reform.
Nevertheless, before embarking on any steps, we must make sure that the reform we want to implement will not in itself need to be reformed. Change should be genuine and not just for the sake of change. This is not a process to be taken lightly; it has to be approached with a clear vision, identifying past mistakes and shortcomings, suggesting suitable solutions and learning from past experiences.
There are two groups involved in this process. The first are the ulema and religious men, some of whom see in the Taleban in Afghanistan an ideal example for Muslims to follow. But among these are some who see in the demise of the Taleban, proof that such an ultra-conservative movement was not spiritually fit to lead Muslim society. Which group is right? Some ulema also support Islamic political parties joining democratic regimes and consider this a legitimate right dictated by necessity. But this same group considers Islamic governments working with international organizations to have entered into alliance with infidels. Others view democracy as un-Islamic. Some say Islam calls for shoura — consultation — but do not define a specific form under which it can operate.
The second groups are the intellectuals, especially those impressed with America and everything American. I want to ask these: Is there in America an ideal example that symbolizes freedom? This is a disputed matter since many argue the freedom America preaches is a fake and that it is the media that distorts and guides the public down the road it chooses for them. Here facts are twisted and wrong portrayed as right. Consider the justifications given for attacking Iraq.
The majority of the American people say that President Bush and his administration have served the religious and national goals of the United States. Why then should we blame those with religious and nationalist affiliations in the Arab and Muslim world for seeking to do the same?
Would America allow Arabs and Muslims everything it believes in and chooses for itself? Why do other peoples care for their culture and heritage and fight to protect it against foreign invasion — the French, for example, are waging war against the American movie culture — while Arabs and Muslims are not allowed to do the same? I leave these questions for others to answer.
Arab News Fromt the Local Press 28 June 2003
