In politics a mistake is worse than a crime

[Solomon2]

28/10/2011
By Amir Taheri

I know that by saying this I could be accused of sentimentalism or worse. However, watching the video of Muammar Gaddafi’s final moments, I was struck by a sense of unease. I own no television and seldom watch the box. So, I might have escaped the disturbing footage. Unfortunately, I had to see it because the BBC wanted to interview me about the colonel’s end.

But, why the unease?

Never a fan of the colonel, I was among the first to discover the fraudulent nature of the persona he projected. (My first article criticising him appeared in October 1970.) Whenever I interviewed him, the encounter was anything but friendly. I was also among the first to support the Libyan uprising.

Nevertheless, seeing Gaddafi treated like a wounded dog, and shot, even though with a golden gun, made me uncomfortable.

As those images darkened my mood, other images, this time photos in newspapers and magazines, from a more distant past came to haunt me.

Some showed corpses of lofty leaders who met sordid ends. Others were mug shots of the mighty crushed by the wheel of fortune.

Since all the images were those of Muslim rulers, it seemed as if Gaddafi’s fate, far from exceptional, followed a pattern established by decades of political violence.

There was the portrait of Nuqrachi Pasha, Egypt’s Prime Minister, murdered by the Muslim Brotherhood, along that of Imam Yahya of Yemen, another victim of the “brothers.”

On one page of the memory album were mug shots of Hosni al-Za’im, Syria’s first military dictator followed by that of Sami Hannawi, the man who had him murdered before being murdered in his turn.

On another page, Abdullah bin Hussein, the founding emir of Transjordan, murdered in a mosque.

The albums and there are the mutilated corpses of Iraq’s young King Faisal and his uncle Abdul-Ilah along that of Prime Minister Nuri Said. And, what about the shattered corpse of Abdul Karim Qassem, the man who ordered the massacre? Next, we have the charred body of Abdul-Salam Arif al-Jumaili, the man responsible for Qassem’s murder.

The next images belong to Ibrahim al-Hamdi and Ahmad Al-Ghishmi two Yemeni presidents murdered in succession.

And, who could forget images of Anwar Sadat, the man who gave Egypt its only half-victory in 2000 years, or that of Algerian President Muhammad Boudiaf, gunned down like a prey in hunting season?

Back to Iraq, possibly the Arab country most stricken by violence, there is the image of Saddam Hussein, hung and left to dry.

The gallery of horror pictures is not confined to Arab lands.

Here is Turkey’s Prime Minister Adnan Menderes, dangling from the gallows. On the next page, is the bullet-ridden corpse of Amir Abbas Hoveyda, Iran’s longest serving Prime Minister. Then we have the charred corpses of Muhammad-Ali Rajai, the second President of the Islamic Republic, and his Prime Minister Muhammad-Javad Bahonar.

Next is the body of Hafiz-Allah Amin, Afghanistan’s Communist president, turned into a sieve with gunshots. At the crescendo of horror we have the corpse, emasculated and cut into pieces, of Muhammad Najib-Allah, the last Communist President of Afghanistan.

In this macabre picture gallery we also find the hanged body of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, Pakistan’s Prime Minister followed by that of the man who ordered the hanging General Muhammad Zia ul-Haq, who met his death when his aircraft exploded in mid-air.

The photographic morgue does not tell the whole story of politics in the Muslim world. Another chapter is filled with the narrative of exile: in the so-called Muslim world you are in power one day and in exile the next.

We see the Shah of Iran, driven out of home, knocking on every door for admission, and dying in Cairo, a broken man. More fortunate exiles could be found in Parisian cafes or Wimbledon villas, plotting a problematic return home.

Obviously, our pictorial morgue is full of both good and bad men, and , in some cases, monsters. Some of the victims deserved their fate, others did not. In every case, the end was an arbitrary one, defying reason, logic and a law, elements without which there is no civilisation.

The question is: couldn’t we find other mechanisms for change?

Traditionally, the most frequently used methods were the poison administered by the harem favourite or the dagger driven deep by the assassin. Ottoman Sultans and Safavid Shahs had a habit of blinding their brothers to protect themselves, and seldom succeeded.

Gaddafi recognised no mechanism for change and allowed none to be shaped. When his choice was narrowed down to death or exile, he mocked the first and believed the second would remain available to the 11th hour. He was wrong on both counts.

Senegal’s President Abdullahi Wade and South African President Jacob Zuma tried to promote a transition under which the colonel would step aside and allow the formation of a transitional government including at least one of his sons. The self-styled “Supreme Guide” would have none of that.

Even a quick glance at the map of the so-called Muslim World shows that the most stable countries are the ones with established mechanisms for change. It is impossible to envisage a human society where the desire for change is absent at all times. Wise leaders try to turn change into their ally, lest it become their foe and, in the final analysis, their executioner.

Some like Syria’s Bashar al-Assad , Yemen’s Ali Abdullah Salih , Sudan’s Omar al-Bashir and Iran’s Ali Khamenehi refuse to understand that simple fact of political life.

Their refusal is worse than a crime; it is a mistake. link

Amir Taheri was born in Ahvaz, southwest Iran, and educated in Tehran, London and Paris. He was Executive Editor-in-Chief of the daily Kayhan in Iran (1972-79). In 1980-84, he was Middle East Editor for the Sunday Times. In 1984-92, he served as member of the Executive Board of the International Press Institute (IPI). Between 1980 and 2004, he was a contributor to the International Herald Tribune. He has written for the Wall Street Journal, the New York Post, the New York Times, the London Times, the French magazine Politique Internationale, and the German weekly Focus. Between 1989 and 2005, he was editorial writer for the German daily Die Welt. Taheri has published 11 books, some of which have been translated into 20 languages. He has been a columnist for Asharq Alawsat since 1987. Taheri's latest book "The Persian Night" is published by Encounter Books in London and New York.

 

[roadrunner]

i generally agree with the article. the mechanism for change in many muslim countries is poor.

otoh, i'm not sure how much of the populations care about wanting visible leadership change.

 

[Solomon2]

A comment from The New English Review:

As noted above, the larger question is why are Muslim peoples so aggressive and so violent? The answer should be clear, to all non-Muslims, but apparently not to those who still must defend Islam: that is, the Qur'an and Hadith and Sira are full of violence. Muhammad was a warrior, who took part in 78 military campaigns, 77 of them aggressive wars without any justification. Think of his raid on the inoffensive Jewish farmers of the Khaybar Oasis, returning from their fields, and completely unaware of Muhammad and his men, who came because Muhammad wanted their property, wanted their women. Look at all the violence and aggression in the Hadith.

And look at the list that Amir Taheri provides. He does not tell you the whole story of what happened when some of these people were killed. He does not tell you how Colonel Qassem's body was shown on television. He does not tell you about how the skulls of Prince Feisal and his uncle Abdullah were kicked about Baghdad. He does not tell you that "strongman" Nuri es-Said was caught trying to escape, dressed as a woman, was killed, and then his naked corpse dragged behind a car through the streets of Baghdad, to the great delight of populace, who hit the corpse and proceeded to mutilate it in other ways.

Nor is Amir Taheri's list complete. Think of the assassination, in 1960, of Jordan's Prime Minister Hazza Barakat Al-Majali. He was blown up by a bomb, along with eleven other people. . Or think of the assassination, at a meeting of the Arab League in Cairo in 1971, of Al-Majali's successor as Jordanian Prime Minister, Wasfi al-Tal, who was killed by four Black September assassins on the order of Yassir Arafat (revenging himself on King Hussein for suppressing the "Palestinians" in Jordan); one of his killers bent down to lap up his blood.

Think of how Saddam Hussein, scarcely in power, held a meeting of all of Iraq's political figures, possibly even a meeting of its Parliament, and with occasionaly crocodile tears flowing, read out a list of "traitors" who, as their names were called, were seized by armed men who took them from the room to their deaths -- and still Saddam, wiping the tears from his face, read another name, and another, and another.

Think of the hanging of Mahmoud Muhammad Taha, n the Sudan, not because he had lifted a finger against anyone, but merely because he wanted somehow to reform Islam.

Taheri, of course, is talking only about political leaders. Think about the violence of everyday life. Think of the pogroms against Jews, in Yemen, in Libya, in Iraq, in Syria, everywhere in the Muslim lands, until there were hardly any Jews left anywhere in those lands. Think about the pogroms against Christians, in present-day Iraq (without their protector, Saddam Hussein), in Egypt (when Hassan Al-Banna, Tariq Ramadan's grandfather, whipped up Cairene crowds against them, back in 1941), or when many others belong to his Muslim Brotherood whipped people up against the Copts, as has been happening steadily over many years, and perhaps most dramatically since the "freedom" of the "Arab Spring" has allowed Muslims in Egypt to behave not as the naive Copts had hoped, but as the realistic Copts had feared.

Think of the attacks on Christians, the charges of blasphemy, the rape and murder -- by educated Pakistanis, by lawyers -- of Christian servant-girls, think of the seizure of Christian property, think of the daily cruelty and violence against Christians all over Pakistan. And as for the Hindus, and in Bangladesh the Hindus and the few remaining Buddhists -- you know what their lives are like.

Aggression. Violence. Crulety. Lies, Nonsense. Every kind of conspiracy theory. Every kind of craziness that makes even those who see through it end up, even as dissidents, sometimes slightly off themselves.

That's Islam.

Amin Taheri can't quite say that. He can't quite come to that conclusion. But we, who have no ties of filial piety, no need to defend it in any way, can see it for what it is, and find the source of all of its ills in the texts themselves -- Qur'an, Hadith, Sira -- and the atmospherics created in societies, and minds, suffused with Islam.

 

[Developereo]

Since all the images were those of Muslim rulers, it seemed as if Gaddafi’s fate, far from exceptional, followed a pattern established by decades of political violence.

As opposed to political violence in Latin America, SE Asia, Africa and Eastern Europe?

Sure. Why let facts get in the way of a diatribe?

 

[roadrunner]

"The New English Review".. a very neutral website, not only that selecting a comment as a post. Doh!

 

[Solomon2]

As opposed to political violence in Latin America, SE Asia, Africa and Eastern Europe? Sure. Why let facts get in the way of a diatribe?

That conforms with the NER comment: Taheri knows other cultures have leaders who have met violent ends but he omits that and focuses on Muslim leaders' fates because he can't bring himself to baldly and boldly declaim that - for Pakistan and other "Muslim" states - Islam is the problem, not the solution. Taheri can only say that indirectly.

 

[Developereo]

That conforms with the NER comment: Taheri knows other cultures have leaders who have met violent ends but he omits that and focuses on Muslim leaders' fates because he can't bring himself to baldly and boldly declaim that - for Pakistan and other "Muslim" states - Islam is the problem, not the solution. Taheri can only say that indirectly.

The claim, implicitly by Taheri and explicitly by NER, is that the political violence proves Muslim societies are violent. But the same violence also occurs in non-Muslim societies. So the premise of connecting it to Islam fails.

If all Muslim societies were violent, and only Muslim societies were violent, then the claim would be valid. Since neither of those statements is true, the claim is invalid.

 

[roadrunner]

im not sure if taher is implicitly implying that muslim societies are violent. he is suggesting that politics in muslim countries is gory and he has a point.

the implicit implication only occurs because poster solomon2 pulled up a second article (actually a comment from an islamophobic site) that associated violence with Islam so trying to imply the first article is a good example of the inherent violence of Muslims. Silly games by the poster really.

 

[Solomon2]

The claim, implicitly by Taheri and explicitly by NER, is that the political violence proves Muslim societies are violent. But the same violence also occurs in non-Muslim societies. So the premise of connecting it to Islam fails.

No, an argument connecting violence uniquely to Islam would fail. That doesn't eliminate the argument that Islam is susceptible to political violence and the this religion-inspired issue is something Muslims should address.

 

[Solomon2]

the implicit implication only occurs because poster solomon2 pulled up a second article (actually a comment from an islamophobic site) that associated violence with Islam so trying to imply the first article is a good example of the inherent violence of Muslims. Silly games by the poster really.

(Not violence, but political violence.) Maybe. I had to pull up the second because - while Alsharq Alwasat is a well-written and finely edited newspaper by Arab standards, its columnists do not necessarily, in my opinion, allow themselves to speak frankly and openly. So the NER commenter may be correct about what Mr. Taheri was trying to say.

 

[Developereo]

No, an argument connecting violence uniquely to Islam would fail. That doesn't eliminate the argument that Islam is susceptible to political violence and the this religion-inspired issue is something Muslims should address.

That's the thing. Your second article talks about community violence to imply that Islam and violence are correlated.

If you are only talking about political violence, then again the argument doesn't hold. Not all Muslim countries have a history of political violence (Turkey, Malaysia) and, as I wrote in my first post, there is plenty of political violence in non-Muslim countries

So, again, no dice.

PS. If you are saying that Muslim religious leaders get involved in political campaigns, then you may be right. I don't know if religious leaders of other religions have a history of leading political campaigns. I would imagine some Jewish leaders might have led campaigns against Nazis. I don't know if any Buddhist leaders were involved in various SE Asian revolutions. Ditto for Christians elsewhere.

 

[Solomon2]

The difference between "community violence" and "political violence" is...? I think "community violence" is merely something you invented to avoid matters you don't want to discuss.

 

[Developereo]

The difference between "community violence" and "political violence" is...? I think "community violence" is merely something you invented to avoid matters you don't want to discuss.

I am just following your lead:

(Not violence, but political violence.)

Perhaps you can explain what you meant by that distinction above.

 

[Solomon2]

Perhaps you can explain what you meant by that distinction above.

Hmm, you got me there. A distinction I made in the morning doesn't seem so sensible in the evening! Yet that detracts nothing from Taheri's thrusts.