Roots Of Nationalism In The Muslim World by Shabir Ahmed

During the mid-19th Century, the missionaries adopted a policy which they had not employed before. The missionaries were not content themselves with just schools, printing shops and clinics, but went further to establish associations. In 1842, a committee was set up to establish a scientific association under the auspices of the American mission. The committee’s work lasted for five years until it had managed to establish an association called the ‘Association of Arts and Science’. Its members included Nasif al-Yaziji and Boutros al-Bustani2, who were Lebanese Christians taken on board because they were Arabs, Eli Smith and Cornelius van Dick, who were American, and Colonel Churchill, who was English. The objectives of the association at first were vague, it had the tendency to teach science to adults, as well as teaching youngsters at school. The association encouraged adults and youngsters alike to learn Western culture, orientating them according to the missionary plan.

However, despite the huge efforts put in by the association it only managed to recruit fifty active members in the whole of al-Sham in two years. They were all Christians, mainly from Beirut, no Muslim or Druze whatsoever joined the association. Colossal efforts were made to expand and activate the work of the association but to no avail.

The association collapsed after five years from its initial establishment without reaping any significant results except for the desire of the missionaries to establish more associations. Therefore, another association was founded in 1880 and it was named the ‘Oriental Association’. It was founded by the Jesuits under the guardianship of the French Jesuit Father Henri Debrenier and all its members were Christians. It followed in the footsteps of the ‘Association of Arts and Science’ lasting only a short time before collapsing as its predecessor had done. Afterwards, several associations sprang up all over the place, but all were doomed to failure and they collapsed as before.

A new association was founded in 1857 which adopted a slightly different method. No foreigners whatsoever were allowed to join and its founders were all Arabs. Somehow it managed to succeed and some Muslims and Druze actually joined, the association accepted them because they were Arabs. Its name was the ‘Syrian Scientific Association’. It became successful due to its activities and its Arabic affiliation and also because of the absence of foreigners among its membership. Its members managed to convince other people to join and they gathered support for the association until one hundred and fifty members had enrolled in it. Among its administrative staff were some noted Arab personalities such as Muhammad Arsalan from the Druze and Hussain Bayham from the Muslims. Personalities from all Arab Christian sects joined, the most noted of them being Ibrahim al-Yaziji and Boutros al-Bustani. This association outlasted all the others. Its programme was designed to accommodate all sects and be the spark for Arab nationalism. However, its hidden objective was in fact colonial and missionary dressed in the name of science. It manifested itself in the spreading of Western culture and education.

In 1875, the ‘Secret Association’ was formed in Beirut; it was actually based on a political concept. It began encouraging the concept of Arab nationalism. Its founders were five young men from amongst those who had been educated in the Protestant college in Beirut. They were all Christians whom the missionary parties had managed to affect. Following this group’s formation of the association, a small number of members were recruited by them. The association seemed to be calling, through its declarations and leaflets, for Arab nationalism and political independence for the Arabs, especially those in Syria and Lebanon. However, its actual work and its real programme was concerned with a different objective entirely. Its aim was to cast strange desires and false hopes into people’s hearts. It called for nationalism, Arabs and Arabism and encouraged animosity towards the ‘Uthmani State, calling it the Turkish state. It worked towards separating religion from the State and towards making Arab nationalism the basis of life. Despite the fact that the association always championed Arabism, those in charge referred repeatedly in their literature to Turkey accusing her of snatching the Islamic Khilafah from the Arabs, of violating the Islamic Shari‘ah and of abusing the deen. This clearly demonstrates the true nature of the association and the real objective for which it had been founded, i.e. to cause unrest against the Islamic State, to create suspicion and scepticism about the deen and to establish political movements based on non-Islamic principles.

What is in fact a certainty concerning these movements is that they had been initiated by the Western powers. It was they who established them, monitored their progress and managed them. They also wrote reports about their activities. For instance, the British consul in Beirut sent a telegram to his government on 28th July 1880 saying, “Revolutionary leaflets have come into circulation, Midhat is suspected to be the source, despite this, the situation remains calm. Details in the post.”3

This telegram was despatched in the wake of a leaflet distributed on the streets of Beirut and posted on the walls there. The telegram was soon followed by several letters sent by the British consuls in Beirut and Damascus. The letters were accompanied by copies of the leaflets which the association had distributed and should therefore rightly be regarded as reports on the movement set up in the Protestant college which began its activities in al-Sham. The association’s activities were more evident in al-Sham, although they took place in other predominantly Arab areas as demonstrated by what the British commissioner in Jeddah wrote to his government in 1882; in a report about the Arab movement he stated, “However, news has reached me that even in Makkah itself some intellectuals have begun talking about freedom, it seems to me from what I have heard that a plan has been designed aiming at uniting Najd with the land between the two rivers, i.e. the South of Iraq, and appointing Mansur Pasha as ruler, as well as uniting ‘Asir and Yemen by appointing ‘Ali ibn ‘Aabid to rule over them.”4

Britain was not the only interested party, France also displayed a great deal of interest.

In 1882, one of the French officials in Beirut voiced the French concern by saying, “The spirit of independence is well spread and I noticed during my stay in Beirut the dedication of Muslim youths in establishing schools and clinics and in reviving the country. What is worth mentioning here is that this movement is free of any sectarian influence, the association welcomes the membership of the Christians and relies on them to participate in the nationalist activities.”5

A French national wrote from Baghdad, “Everywhere I went I was faced with the common feeling, on the same scale, of hatred for the Turks; as for the concept of initiating a collective action to get rid of this much hated situation, this is very much under way. In the horizons a wind of Arab movement is gathering strength and is about to be born. This people who have been oppressed for a long time are about to proclaim their natural status within the Muslim world and direct the destiny of this world.”6

Missionary work in the name of religion and science was not merely confined to the focus of the attention of the US, France and Britain, but extended to most of the non- Islamic states, including Czarist Russia who sent missionary expeditions and Prussia (Germany) who sent a group of ‘sisters’ (the nuns of Carodt) to participate with other missions. Inspite of the difference of opinion among the various missions and Western delegates regarding their political programmes, which took into consideration their international interests, the objective was the same; the preaching of Christianity and the spreading of Western culture in the East coupled with the arousal of the suspicions of the Muslims towards their deen, pushing them to resent it and to regard their history with contempt whilst leading them to praise the West and its way of life. The missionaries carried out their preaching according to their great hatred of Islam and the Muslims. They dispised the Islamic culture and its way of life and they regarded the Muslims as backward barbarians, which still remains the ill-considered opinion of nearly every European. The results that they achieved are reflected today in the concentration of disbelief and colonialism in our lands.