What justification did Iraq give for its invasion and occupation of Kuwait in August 1990?
For seven months Saddam occupied Kuwait thus resulting in the first Gulf War as US led forces worked to push the Iraqi military out of Kuwait. Many people have given different reasons as to why Saddam invaded Kuwait but it is believed that he wanted to set Iraq free from the ‘gratuitous debt’ he assumed they had accrued during the Iran – Iraq war, to reconcile the theft of their oil by ‘slant drilling’ from Kuwait and to proclaim as theirs the land he believed to rightfully belong to Iraq. Amidst all the reasons that may have led to the invasion of Kuwait Iraq’s reasons may not have been unjustified even though it was resented by America and her allies.
In the 80s Kuwait was allied with Iraq in the Iran – Iraq war because they desired protection by Iraq from Islamic Iran. By the time the war was over Iraq was indebted to a lot of Arabian countries including Kuwait whom they owed $14 billion. Iraq hoped that she could repay her debts if she increased the price of oil but Kuwait went ahead to increase production and in turn lower the prices of oil. At this time Kuwait had begun illegal slant drilling and built military outposts near Kuwait on Iraqi soil. Iraq on the other hand also stipulated that her debts should be cancelled out as she served as a buffer against Iran during the war.
The long European history of religious wars that were paramount during the Age of Enlightenment led to a separation in most European countries of church and state. This divide ensured that secular law should not be considered the same as religious morality. The West was of the opinion that this separation of church and state would help in the emergence of democratic forms of government that are modern and respectful of universal human rights. In the Muslim world however this is not the case as the Islamic law or Sharia as it is called is not in place to handle purely religious matters but also a variety of secular issues like criminal punishments and marriage amongst others.
Today many Islamic nations have clauses in their constitutions that make the sharia law final and any other law that may contradict it unconstitutional. This direction taken by the Islamic world has caused dilemma for leaders of the Western world as some of the stipulations of this law are viewed as backwards and dangerous – standing in the way of human rights and liberalization. There are however revivalists who believe that the reform that is needed in the Muslim world cannot be attained via secularization. Sharia, being a legal process itself could be modernized to promote respect for human rights.
There are many who believe that Sharia does not propose an authoritarian form of government. The Quran upon which the Sharia law is based off alludes to concepts that are basic to democracy. The prophet Mohammad himself was instructed by God to consult with the faithful with regards the handling of affairs and on many instances the hadith has recounted Mohammad consulting with his followers.
What two parallel systems of education exist in contemporary Muslim society, what kind of education do they provide, and how adaptable are they to modernization?
As globalization has turned the world into a single village there are bound to be aspects of globalization that can be found in every part of the world. Education is one of such examples as gradually education is becoming similar around the world with students having to write similar exams. However the Muslim world has another format of education that exists side by side with the modern forms of education. This is the education that is steeped in Islam where the importance is placed on learning about the Quran and every other thing is secondary. This is usually the first formal education that the male children are introduced to and they are usually taught by religious men whose job it is to mould these young boys into model Muslims.
Was Operation Desert Storm an allied victory?
The end of the Cold War saw the President Bush faced with another major foreign crisis in the dictator of Iraq. Saddam Hussein ordered an army into Kuwait on the 2nd of August 1990. While the United States had supplied Iraq with military aid during their 8 year war with Iran, Kuwait was a major supplier of oil to the United States. Iraq’s takeover also threatened Saudi Arabia another major exporter of oil. The world looked to America to see what they would do. America took action and placed over 500,000 thousand troops in Saudi Arabia in a deployment called Dessert Shield. They sought the support of the UN as USSR was an ally of Iraq and the UN offered their backing. The United States then issued a warning to Saddam to vacate Kuwait by January 15, 1991 or face a worldwide onslaught. At the end of January 15 and no response from Saddam Desert Shield became Desert Storm. Although Iraq retaliated they were no match for the troops. However Saddam was still ruling Iraq from Baghdad. Although George Bush was not certain how the allies would take to him entering Baghdad Saddam’s regime was eventually toppled and Iraq agreed to a ceasefire.
. The United Nations showed that they could be used as an instrument of force and in so doing passed its first post-Cold War test. Although Moscow did not participate in the war they did give their approval as great multinational cooperation was demonstrated. America proved that they were still a force to be reckoned with in providing the largest military operation since the Vietnam War as they showed their technological and military edge. President Bush announced that the “new world order has begun.”
Summarize the role of the ulama in contemporary Islamic society?
It is no secret that the modern world is constantly changing and many today have come to believe that the ulama (educated Muslim scholars) are now a relic of their past and of no interest or importance to the modern Muslim society. However with today’s Islamist movements they are once more coming into the limelight. These religious scholars existed in Muslim societies over a thousand years and were prominent participators of the Muslim societies and to ignore them would be tantamount to gross misunderstanding of crucial facets of contemporary Islam and Muslim politics.
Modernity has come with consequences and challenges that have destroyed the privileged access that was available to only the ulama of old. Global capitalism undermined culturally rooted identities and social relations and in so doing brought about the fragmentation of the authority of the ulama as they witnessed the world rapidly changing around them. These scholars at one time were seen to be equal or even above the social position afforded “Westernized intellectuals.” While many claim that they influenced or are influencing contemporary Muslim society, others claim they play significant roles in the religion and politics of contemporary Islam. A good example of such an instance would be what is happening in Iran as they bring change through often unprecedented ways.
What was their relationship to modernization?
In the Muslim countries the ulama had the power to enforce change in the social, political or economic life of the society. Unlike governments, their change came not coercively but rather through the strength and power of their authority. They tend to flourish in places where governance is in accordance with the Quran so their presence is felt in Iran as their influence is tied closely to Islam. It is their duty to interpret the Sharia and they have been known to administer it on many occasions. This sees them wearing the hats of educators, religious guides and moral compasses. Having no formal role in legislation their power comes from the influence they have over public opinion and how legitimate they consider a ruler to be. As a result they have been known to mobilize Muslims in the affairs of politics. They maintained a position of power that was influential in the modernization of their lands. They therefore find themselves playing their most significant role in the bridging of Iran’s conservatism and globalization.
Compare and contrast the 1967 War (between Israel and Egypt, Jordan, and Syria) and the October, or Yom Kippur, War in 1973 (between Israel and Egypt.) What were the causes of each and what were their outcomes and consequences?
The Jewish state has always been in confrontations with her Arabian neighbours. These conflicts that have been ongoing have created a lot of conflict for the international community. Israel as a nation owes her economic and political prosperity to the generosity of the western world. This support did not go unnoticed by the Arab states as they were opposed to the help meted out by America and France and they have tried to stop this alliance whether it be using their market power or aligning them with the USSR during the Cold War. There have been two major wars that have determined and defined the conflict as we know it today. These wars are the Six Day War of 5 – 10 June 1967 and the Yom Kippur War of October 1973.
Before the war of 1967 Israel was embattled nation that shared territories with hostile nations and she knew that if she was struck first she would be crippled as a nation. The war of 1967 changed that and gave Israel spoils of war in the form of land that increased her size 6 times. This war was important in the political thinking of Tel-Aviv as it resolved the parameters of negotiations within the Arab-Israeli conflict ever since. Although the 1973 war was a more sustained confrontation did little to modify the territorial framework that had already been established in 1967.
The war of 1967 put Israel in a very strong position and the support received from the United States made her the military power of the Middle East. However with the added land came added responsibility as Israel now had to protect and keep those lands. Her military might had to be strengthened as a result to enable her accomplish this feat. The Six Day war was an overwhelming success and seen as nothing short of a miracle. Land that previously belonged to Arab was claimed by Israel at the end of this war.
Unfortunately for Israel they went into the 1973 war thinking that things would still remain the way it was in 1967 and were not prepared for the coordinated Arab effort. Although this war could be seen as a draw at best, the fact that it was not a resounding success as the war of 1967 made people look at it as a defeat. This was no longer an overly jubilant nation but rather a sober and scarred one. Hence the two wars produced two extremes of feelings for the Arab nations with them feeling despair after the Six Day war to feelings of pride after the Yom Kippur war.
Israeli security, American involvement and the Palestinian issue were brought to the fore as a result of one or both of these wars. These wars made the Israeli-Arab conflict what it is and has continued to be today. The war of 1973 made the United States place the Israeli-Arab conflict at the top of their foreign policy agenda. This war came about as a result of the war of 1967. While some of the issues of the 1967 war have been settled there are some that have remained to this day and they are Israel’s control of the Golan Heights and the West Bank.
Discuss the fundamental importance of tradition in Islam, comparing and contrasting how it is viewed by traditionalists and modern reformers.
The issue of reforming Islamic thought is not a new one and it has been given as one of the reasons for extending the war on terrorism – the need to bring about economic, political and cultural reform albeit by force. This reform could be in the form of religious education where education could be taught devoid of religious elements that could bring about discrimination. The Muslim thinkers however believe that Islamic tradition and the foundational texts that come from the Quran should remain as is.
Many historians have argued that traditionalism should be viewed through the lens of Islamic thought. People that have been privy to secular education have seen Islam as a fundamental aspect of their identity but secularization dictates that they view Islam different from what the ulama did. They tried in their views to make Islam compatible with challenges of the modern age. But the ulama remained steadfast in their beliefs as they strived to affirm their Muslim identity in an unfamiliar and hostile environment. They anchored their own style of reformism on the Islamic religious traditions of the past. All major Muslim societies have their own ulama that define identity and stake claim to authority.
The rise of political Islam in the 60s and 70s saw to the rise of activisms and various Islamist movements. These movements have been tied closely to extremism and conservatism and as such have been challenging on the women folk because of the place women occupy in Islam. The Sharia law was not just a system of law but it was also a major part of the Muslim culture and as such it wielded so much power and influence over their societies. While the Sharia law affects all Muslims it is seen to be harder felt on women as the law is very restrictive of how they should live their day to day lives. The law also stipulates that women have little or no say in their society.
Modern reformers understand that tradition and custom should be preserved but they also agree that human rights should be infused into these traditions. They advocate a meeting in the middle where tradition comes together with modernism to make for a better society. The traditionalists on the other hand do not want their familiar way of life to be pushed out in favour of modernism. They want their politics and way of life to still be determined by Islam and the Sharia law. However today the world of Islam has undergone such a rapid social change in a bid to separate themselves from the culture and social norms that are taken for granted in the Western world.
