Islam, the imperative of global peace, security
By Afis Oladosu
In the name of Allah, the most Gracious, the most Merciful. All praise is due to Allah, the Lord of the world. We testify that there is no deity worthy of worship but Allah and that the prophet Muhammad (SAW) is His last messenger.
ON the 8th of October, the Norwegian Committee in charge of Nobel Awards decided to award the 2009 Prize for Peace to Mr. Barrack Obama, the President of the United States (U.S.). Obama was awarded the Prize in appreciation of the change which he has brought to the world, the improved cooperation among nations, the unprecedented multilateral efforts to reduce the world stock of nuclear arms which the U.S. now leads, the new positive rapprochement between the U.S. and the Moslem world and the new American initiative and interest to, in league with the United Nations, combat global warming. The award immediately generated reactions from across the world, some positive and others extremely negative. It was applauded by those who are entranced and enchanted by the Obama-"magic" - men and women in the East and the West who are suffering from "Obamamania"; it was dismissed by critics and pundits in the North and the South most of whom love to hate the first black-American president - men and women who are held hostage, as it were, in "Obamaphobia".
The first group celebrated the award not only because it spoke to their vision and perception of the persona of Obama but equally for setting a new record as the first American President to receive such a global award even as he is yet to complete his first year in office; the second considered the award as premature, extremely patronising and totally misplaced. "America is still in Afghanistan promoting violence and here is Mr. Obama being given an award for promoting global peace...what type of peace is this?" the other group queried.
To the perceptive Moslem critic of global politics, the award of the Noble Prize for Peace to Mr. Obama is highly symbolic and instructive. One, it could be seen, in line with the vision of the Norwegian Committee, as an encouragement to Mr. Obama to pursue his much-celebrated peaceful vision and mission for the world to its logical conclusion. Two, the award could be seen as a signifier, the signified being the worldwide declamation of America's many years of cowboy philosophy and "politricks" in the international arena. In other words, in conferring the award to Mr. Obama, the Nobel Committee appeared to be handing a new mandate over to the American President- a mandate which entails the necessity for the American President to seek to reconcile the popularity and acceptability of the American dollar with, in the opinion of critics, the country's moral bankruptcy at the international arena; a mandate which calls the attention of the American President to the fact that just as the ordinary American desires the best luxuries and comforts of this world, an ordinary Palestinian in the forgotten remits of Nablus and Gaza is in no way less human than the ordinary Israeli child.
Put differently, given the critical role that the U.S. has played in fomenting and resolving conflicts in Asia, Africa and in the Middle East, it appears logical that any incentive or encouragement that could be given to the President of U.S. in his efforts towards seeking an end to these crises is highly desirable. The award to Mr. Obama could also be seen as the last opportunity for America to rise up to its destiny as a super power.
But the Nobel Prize for Peace, which was awarded to President Obama is an indirect declamation of violence, insecurity and global disharmony particularly in the Moslem world. In other words, if there are nations and communities in the world today in search of peace and security such could be found in quantum in the Middle East, Africa and Asia. Lack of peace and security in such places as Kabul and Baghdad essays a paradox in the Moslem identities in the contemporary period. It calls to question the textual imperative and injunction for peace and peaceful coexistence; it attenuates the Moslems claim as "witnesses" unto mankind.
In other words, how might we explain the disconnect Islam in the text and Islam in existential realities of Moslems all around the world? While it is indubitable that no Islamic text legalises unwarranted destruction of lives and properties, the involvement of some groups which identity themselves with Islam raises more questions for the Moslem critic to ponder. Such is the case with the recent incidence of Boko Haram in the North of the country; such is the case with the incidences of suicide attacks in a couple of cities in Iraq particularly after the departure of the American soldiers; such is the case with the recent attack on the Islamic University in Islamabad, Pakistan, which killed innocent University students and lecturers. In fact, one could not but wonder whether perpetrators of such acts ever took time to read the following verse of the Glorious Qur'an where Allah says: Because of that...if anyone killed a person not in retaliation of murder or spread corruption on earth- it would be as if he killed all mankind, and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all mankind...(Q5: 32)
But in declaiming incidences of violence, which threatens peace and security it is imperative that governments across the world address socio-economic and political factors which often fuel such inhuman actions. Let there be one single rule of engagement for all in line with the dictates of justice and equity. The establishment of the Palestinian state side by side with the state of Israel, a transparent, consolidated and effective developmental plans and projects in the Niger Delta, the dismantling of the cultural and politico-economic structures which encourage al-Majiri system in the North and promote poverty across the country, a more constructive reading of Islamic texts in a way that would promote peace and security, these and many more constitute important milestones which humanity must traverse in its search for peace and security. President Obama's favour and effort for a reduction in nuclear weaponry would, therefore, achieve more result if it is accompanied by a recession in arms and ammunition industry.
This notion is informed by the fact that people commit acts of violence with guns because access to weapon of minimum destruction (WMD) has been "democratised". Thus if we fail to engage with these issues, and if President Obama eventually fails to pay the "price" for the "Prize", the Norwegian Prize for Peace would eventually become the Norwegian Prize for War.
