Muslims and the Intellectual challenge

The News, December 5, 2005
Muslims and the intellectual challenge
Nasim Zehra

The writer is an Islamabad-based security analyst, and a fellow of the Harvard University Asia Centre

Recently in Islamabad, the Saudi ambassador expressed optimism about the outcome of the extraordinary OIC special summit to be held in Mecca. For his part, Saudi Ambassador Ali Awadh Asseri believes that Islam will soon witness a renaissance, adding the hope that the OIC will be restructured so that it can effectively handle the challenges facing Muslim nations. The ambassador was concerned above all about the ‘negative perception of Muslims’ in the world. Indeed the summit must address this concern, as it always attempts to. These worries notwithstanding, this extraordinary summit and that too in the Holy city of Mecca must necessarily force a deeper reflection on the state of the ummah.

When more than fourteen hundred years ago the Prophet Mohammad instructed his followers to "acquire knowledge even if you have to travel to China," he was underscoring the critical position of knowledge and scholarship in a nation as well as in an individual’s life. And how scholarship was responsible for the ascent of Muslim societies is a matter of recorded history, as is the sharp descent caused by ignorance. Application of knowledge in the management of a society is inextricably linked to the progress of a society, whether intellectual, economic or spiritual.

Today, in the face of a million mounting challenges, we fail at our peril to acquire knowledge in all spheres of human activity ranging from the hard to the social sciences, from the arts to psychology and from technology to the environment. More than just reason, to which those in power and authority seldom yield, the very survival of the human race is dependent on embracing the available knowledge and creating new knowledge. Without this there can be no dealing with the crises of disease, scarcity, natural disasters, man-made disasters and social conflict. Without the tool of knowledge, state and society cannot acquire the wisdom so essential to dealing with the widespread conflict and chaos that are inevitable outcomes of a mismanaged planet.

While the chaos signals less than a perfect management of our planet, the uneven spread of chaos suggest some success stories where the ‘collective society’ has been better managed than the rest. Ours, of the ummah, is among the least successful. Dare we state the obvious. Knowledge was the dividing factor. The world witnessed the journey of Muslim power and glory into oblivion and of others towards imminent power and glory. The power and the glory they acquired was through ‘outdoing’ the other employing the tricks of the many traits that constituted rudimentary governance at the time. Charles Issawi’s seminal work on the economic history of Egypt documents this phenomenon very ably. The West was feeding knowledge into the avenues of power. The exercise of power was being invested with ‘wisdom’ in the pursuit of the objective it had defined for itself. For the pursuit of specific commercial and political objectives, appropriate systems and adequate institutions were put in place.

Freedom of thought enables inquiry without which new knowledge cannot be created and intellectual stagnation often renders redundant that which cannot provide answers and solutions to new questions and challenges. Conversely, societies that possess institutions that inquire, create new knowledge and draw on other sources of knowledge are autonomous and yet have a regular channel for communication with the state. That state and society will be more dynamic, more democratic and perhaps better placed to address the crises of its times. This is a necessary condition that must prevail if the management structures in society are not to atrophy.

We lament the conflict that often surrounds us. But the emergence of conflict in a society does not signal crisis; only its continued existence is cause for concern. Conflict is inherent in the human context and is in fact a catalyst for generating new forms of societal management. The state must recognise the causes of grievances to be able to address them. If the state functions as a conscious perceptive entity, it should take the opportunity that conflict presents. Conflict causes the dynamic growth of the structures of societal management. Crisis indeed does come with a telltale sign — when state institutions are incapable of resolving conflict. Sustained conflict converts into a crisis and chronic crisis into turmoil.

Interestingly the state and society remain in a dynamic mode. Society is where tensions and conflicts are inevitably born, and the state must remain equipped through a continuous evolution to address those tensions and conflicts.

No global collective objectives can be achieved unless the mess within is cleaned up. No fine rationale is needed for this obvious fact. The internal mess stays unresolved unless development, democracy and defence are all upheld. The advancement of the European Union, which was prefaced by internal reform, followed by integration and eventual progress, is a case in point.

The abiding question for our times is how best to organise collective existence within a nation state and even beyond. Linked to it has been the abiding struggle of how to exercise power and authority in a wise manner so that it advances the ‘good’ of the maximum number. Rousseau put forward the social contract. Machiavellian dictates were to promote the survival of the incumbent, the authority of the ‘Prince’.

However these opposing approaches, one protecting the ‘ruled’ and the other the ‘rulers’, must merge into one because of the human condition. The nature of contemporary challenge is such that it offers no cushion to the ‘rulers’. The logic of managing societies is uniform and indivisible no matter what your vantage point. Rousseau’s social contract and Machiavelli’s recipe have now converged. So it is the logic of survival that compels a wiser, more knowledge-based management of society.

Society and its managers shall swim or sink together. Hence Machiavellian clients too must follow the logic of Rousseau because today the larger good also includes the good of those who exercise power. Authority and power too have become vulnerable to the vicissitudes of our times. It is now a collective struggle for survival.

In the absence of knowledge, let’s see where we stand today. Out of 191 UN countries, 57 are in the OIC. We have a population of over 1.25 billion, or one-fifth of the world’s total. We also possess roughly one-fifth of the world’s land mass. We own some of the most abundant energy and mineral resources in the world. We possess 70 per cent of world’s energy resources. And we supply 40 per cent of the global exports of raw materials. Yet the OIC has less than five per cent of the world GDP. Besides, the others are growing faster. The GDP of the entire ummah is roughly $1,400 billion while that of Japan alone is $4,500 billion. The highest GDP of a Muslim country is $185 billion while that of tiny European countries with no natural resources stands above $200 billion.

Our knowledge hubs are few and far between. Others enjoy a clear technological and human resource edge over others. We have only 500 universities and 1,000 PhDs per annum. Japan alone has more than 9,000 universities and England by itself produces more than 2000 PhDs every year. Incomes within the OIC are also skewed. Only six countries account for more than half the OIC’s collective income, with the remaining 51 generating a meagre income of barely $600 billion.

In trade and foreign direct investment, the performance of the O1C countries is again dismal. The OIC’s share in world trade is only six to eight per cent. All the OIC countries combined attract barely $15 billion in FDI, which is equivalent to the performance of Sweden or Thailand alone. Just one country, China, receives FDI totalling $50 billion. What is most saddening is that intra-OIC trade is a small fraction of total trade volume of member countries.

None of this will change unless we do not ‘fix’ our fundamentals. What then is needed? Acquisition, spread and integration of knowledge in the functioning of state institutions, accountable exercise of power and rule of law, not the rule of the strongest. The state of the ummah cannot improve unless we get all this right.

Indeed a candid dialogue needs to be encouraged among our different social classes. We need to evolve a common language, break the stereotypes and end the divide within to encourage us to know the other. Conduct an informed discourse that draws upon the intellectual progress of our times, that facilitates the intellectual progress of both state and society.

At Mecca, where the Prophet Mohammad started his journey in the ultimate struggle armed with the ultimate knowledge and immense wisdom, the OIC must declare the pursuit and spread of knowledge as its primary task.
Email: nasimzehra@hotmail.com