“The Four Pillars of the Umma: Arabs,
Turks, Kurds and Persians”
Prof. Dr. Firuz Demir Yasamis
Arab Thought Forum
International Conference on
Amman, 22 July 2018
Le Royal Hotel
Looking at the title of
this one-day round table, I see three main concepts which form the overall
picture of the area concerned.
The first concept of “Umma” is directly related to Islam,
our religion.
The second concept indicates
“ethnic and nationalist” breakages:
the Arabs, the Turks, the Kurds and the Persians (or, Iranians) living in the
Middle East.
The third concept is
being a “pillar” which denotes to
the essential foundations of inter and intra regional relations and, again,
indicates the main decision makers in terms of politics, economics, religious, diplomacy
and foreign relations of the main countries taking place in the region.
All these concepts
direct me to think about the excessively complex and war-like conditions in the
Middle East.
In this context, the
first question that comes to my mind is this: Are the pillars accurately spelt out? Or, are there other main
players that deeply affect the region such as Israel, Egypt, the USA and
Russia?
My second question is
related to Islam as it relates to the concept of Umma. Yes, all these nations/ethnic
groups are Muslim. However, there are sectarian and theocratic differences
among them ranging from Sufism to Selefism, to secular systems and systems
based upon Islamic Shariah. The question to be answered here is this: Would it be politically feasible and
realistic to expect that the deeply rooted differences can be resolved ad
consolidated?
The third question to
be answered is related to the political systems of the main pillars of the
region. The political systems in the region change from monarchic systems, to
republican ones, to parliamentarian systems and the presidential systems. Then
the question is this: How realistic is to
expect that these differing political systems can be peacefully merged into
each other or at least can cooperate effectively together?
Another important
question is related to the global nature of the international relations. It is
obvious that Islam may provide an umbrella or may be seen as the common
denominator for the main pillars mentioned earlier. However, all these pillars
have global ties namely, military, political, ideological, commercial and
economical with the other nations of the World. In most cases they are not the
sole owners of their own sovereignty. Even the concept of sovereignty has
changed its meaning nowadays. There are other role players which do have
powerful impacts on national decision making procedures in the region. These
pillars cannot decide alone but they have to take other role players interests
into consideration. If so, would it be reasonable to expect that conflict
resolution/management systems can be set up effectively to secure the peace,
stability and democracy in the region to avoid the immitigable and adverse
impacts of political confrontations.
The last but not the least
question is related of the conflicts of interests among the four pillars. All
of the pillars of Umma have their own political, economic and religious
conflicting issues within their own national borders. It is also not possible
to deny that all main pillars do have drastic conflicts of interests among themselves.
Additionally, there are
many differences and inequalities in terms of GNP level, richness of natural
resources, level of development, employment and unemployment conditions and
literacy and educational level among these four main pillars.
Consequently, the Umma
has four pillars indeed in the region.
However, all these
pillars are not identical with each other in terms of shape, color, height,
thickness and strength.
Now, after all, finally
the real last question comes to my mind: Would
it be possible to imagine and expect that a stable, brotherly, peaceful, orderly
and long-lasting political life and international relations can be established
and sustained on the table supported by these pillars?
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder