Contact us: Kafir1@hotmail.com

Islam And Anti-globalisation

Content

Abstract

Introduction

Chap 1: capitalism and anti-globalisation

Section 1: capitalism and globalisation

A/ the process in a historical contest

B/ the process in a political and cultural context

Section 2 The anti-globalisation movement

A/ history of anti- globalisation

B/ membership

C/ Goals

D/ vision

Chap2: Islam and anti-globalisation

Section 1. Islam as a “ world view”

Section 2. Islam as an anti-globalisation force

A/ politics, fundamentalism and terrorism

B/ Islam and economics

C/ Islam and Environment

D/ Islam and global culture

Conclusion


Abstract.

It is admitted that there are three world views: Christianity which is associated with capitalism and liberalism; Marxism ( socialism and communism) and Islam.

In the debate on globalisation, an important opinion argues that Christianity, capitalism and liberalism are just imperialists tools cautioning exploitation, social inequalities, privatisation and misery of the majority of world population. This opinion is not far from Islam‘s position because, as says Martin Forward (1), Islam is one of the opposing force to globalisation. One reason is, according to J. Petras and H. Veltmeyer(2), the fact that “American imperialism” (instead of globalisation) describes best the actual political, cultural and social context as shaped by the powerful American economy.

Marxism that was once an important opponent to the above ideologies, has lost the battle on the ground though its main ideas are still haunting most thinkers.

But as on one side, in the name of globalisation, social inequalities between poor and rich are widening; on the other, anti-globalisation protests are growing in mobilisation every day. The growth of these protests raises complex questions among which these two: do protesters want communism? Can Islam as an “anti-imperialism world view” offer an alternative to liberal aspects ( on freedom, privatisation, “individual-state” relation…) of globalisation?

In this project, “Islam” is essentially understood as a “world view”, difficult to be assigned a precise geo-political unity and era of influence. Contrary to communism which had defined countries, Islam, except for few countries, is expanded in many part of the world and has no territorial limit though for all Muslim, there exist a kind of Islamic culture and way of living.

This project is just an attempt to understand the relation “Islam- Anti globalisation movement“, a topic that still is open to research. It does not, in no way, pretend to respond to the complexity of questions related the debate “globalisation- Islam“.


Introduction

Today, a much discussed “concept” is GLOBALISATION. (3)

Easy and, at the same time, difficult concept to understand, as underlined by Fred Hallyday (4). The term covers a multiple of processes: it is fuzzier than the “state” or “economy”. In summary it denotes the reduction of barrier between societies and states; homogeneity of states and societies; increase of trade and migration between societies; politically it means a greater coordination between government; technologically, it is a revolution of the relation “time-space-identity”. br

But some people do not believe that “Globalisation” brings people together in a better world. It is, they say, a new kind of colonialism and exploitation; all is about multinational and trans national corporations’ interests and American imperialism. This opposition to the actual philosophy of globalisation is called “anti-globalisation” movement. Today this movement is gaining in media coverage, the same way that It happened with proletarian movement at the beginning of the 20th century and, its influence on politics, culture and economics is growing. br

True, as says Karl Marx, ideology goes with action or vice versa. But does anti-globalisation movement have a coherent ideology offering better issues? It is easy to say that giant like “Nike” exploit their staff in third world’s countries! But compared to which staff and which environment? Is anti-globalisation a new communism’s gospel?

This project, while trying to understand the conflict “capitalism and anti-globalisation”, will attempt to give an answer to the question “where does stand Islam in the anti-globalisation movement?”

The interest of this subject is political, economical and cultural. The debate about Globalisation focuses on a new international order; it questions the role of states and civil society in an environment dominated by capitalist corporations. The failure to address and solve real international problems such as cultural decline, unemployment, poverty, exploitation and inequality result in “anti-globalisation” protest. Islam, one of the main “world views” finds itself on the side of protesters because it stands against what it sees as American (and Western in general) imperialism and corrupted way of life. But in the struggle against a common enemy, what are the relations between Islam and anti-globalisation movement?

This essay will comprise a chapter on understanding capitalism and anti-globalisation movement; the second chapter will focus on where “anti-globalisation movement” and Islam meet.

A general conclusion with our own views will end the whole.



Chap 1: Capitalism and Anti- globalisation movement

Section 1. Capitalism and globalisation

A/ The Process in a historical context

Globalisation as a process does not start today.

The history of globalisation has a long way behind it.(5) Some think that it started in the 15th century with Christophe Columbus’ discovery of America and Vasco De Gama landing in South Africa (Cape of good hope). These first contacts of whites with other races had a big importance in the posterior development of race relations. This first move is the beginning of Western imperialism and consequently of capitalist expansion. In the course of history, this step has a big significance in the sense that just after the feudal system and the religious war (crusades) that characterised the Middle Ages, it was important to find new lands, new wealth and new souls for the church.

But economically, politically and culturally, it is mainly in the 18th century that globalisation took of: the railway was created, the telegraph invented and the world was mapped. The division of labour that Marx studied, was at its highest stage.

Marx (6), trying to understand capitalism and its origin, went back to the division of history in four according to the kind of property. He distinguished two kind of relations in a production process: the relation “Man-Nature” and the relation “man-Man”. The way living men produce from the nature determines their personal relations. In the past, each form of society had its own division of labour and therefore its own form of property. “Private property”, “division of labour” and “class inequality” have not always been part of social organisation, they appear at one stage (the Marxian second stage) of the history. So it can be deducted that capitalism, in its first manifestation, appears in the antiquity (second stage) already. The added-value of labour that is kept by the owner of means of production represent the profit that helps to entertain the capital and makes it grow, increasing so the gap between the class of capitalists and that of labourers. All the capitalism system relies on this profit relation.

It is later that capitalism will open to globalisation. As “liberalism” is the ideology of globalisation, it (globalisation) is presumed to be a result of the enlightenment ideas. In liberal philosophy (6), it is admitted that freedom goes with “private property” but that, private property and “equality” may reveal conflictual relationship. To prevent few people from confusing “equality and private property”, a strong state has the duty to establish order according to the rule of law. In liberalism, it is essential to protect “private property” and individual freedom. Privatisation and free trade, therefore, are not in contradiction with freedom, individual right and private property! With the 18th C invention of railway and telegraph, as a result of liberal ideas, tourism and movement of goods developed timidly toward globalisation.

But this process will be halted by the first world war and the Russian revolution that broke apart this global economy until the World War2 . The period between the two wars, with The U.S passing a “protectionist tariff act” and Britain applying a “duty on import”, capitals flows dried up and the migration process was halted.

Globalisation will be timidly reactivated in 1944 with the Bretton Woods institution where Keynes’ ideas gave some light to a new direction in a divided world between communism and capitalism. Among these Keynesian ideas there were: (7)

- The international trade should be gradually freed

- The speculative capital should be tightly controlled

- goods can circulate freely, not money.

- the exchange rate of currency convertible has to be controlled but the exchange rate must be fixed.

- The government should be more interventionist

- the International bank (world bank) would make loans to help rebuild war-torn economy and to finance development. This has been completed by the Marshall plan in 1947.

- the stabilisation fund ( IMF) would lend money to countries that temporarily have difficulty financing a balance of payment deficit; it should also sanction an adjustment in their exchange rate if the problem seems permanent.

The Keynesian idea of free circulation of goods and control of capital will be abandoned in 1973 when the oil prices rose, providing third world countries that produce petrol with huge amount of money . The high growth rates and shot-term boom in the price of primary commodities, particularly oil fuelled optimism in the South. The Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), writes Ellwood (8), was the most successful Third World “producer union”. By standing together and controlling the supply of oil they were able to increase the price of petroleum three-fold to over $ 30 a barrel.

The consequence was the lift, by westerners, on capital movement control in order to attract these foreign capitals. And what happened, is that with this vast wealth of “petrodollars”, much of it was invested in Northern financial centres or deposited in Northern commercial banks. The same money will constitute the essential of loans that Northern banks will allow to “non-oil-producing” developing countries. In 1995, when the WTO replaces the GATT that once was created in 1948, it was to help lower trade barriers multilaterally. Transport and communication are faster and cheaper than ever: the relation “time-space” is simplified. But later focus on the organization (WTO) with protocols like the MAI (see p11), will prove that it is just a tool of capitalists to control international markets and politics. The fall of communism was a kind of “green light” for multinational corporations to become an influential political and economical power in the world. Lowering trade barrier multilaterally to meet globalisation agenda raises many controversies. Some like Philippe Legrain think it will help to build a better world, others like Naomi Klein believes that it will bring in worse social inequalities.

B/ The process in a political and cultural context

On the political and cultural aspect, globalisation wave ideas started circulating more quickly with the invention of telegraph(9). That is how the American revolution ( a result of the enlightenment ideas) in 1776 will be a precursor to the French revolution in 1789 though the French one had more impact on the posterior development of political organisation, philosophy and law. Art, literature and music were becoming a part of the bourgeoning global economy. Colonisation in the 19th century had also a huge impact on culture development with the introduction of new conception of art, music, folklore, languages. International tourism will develop sensibly in this post- industrial revolution period reinforcing so the global economy.

The same way colonisation operated in the previous centuries, globalisation is trying to bring western political and cultural values to the rest of the world. Politics is shaped by economics but most developing countries are heavily indebted. And, if they can not overcome their economical problems, how can these disorganised economies integrate the global village without posing threat to the whole body? Persisting unemployment, health problems, rampant demography and educational deficit are among the biggest challenges that have to be addressed. Face to such situation international actors have been questioning the best way of addressing the political struggle created by poverty, ethnicity and ignorance in these countries. The debate is on how to democratise poor countries and create law abiding political class? How to implement new policies? The main opposition to what was taken as American imperialism came from Muslim countries. One fourth of the world population, says Hoogvelt,(10) is Muslim and 28 countries with a total of 850 millions are classified as Muslim countries because the majority of their population is Muslim. But the world‘s Muslims are around 1.2 billions and this represents an important opposition to “globalisation”! Culturally, the global move was not to bring the whole world to a single culture but to a multiculturalist global society with a common language. That is where main languages like English or Spanish become unifying globalisation’s tools. Music, fashion and sport are just other factor of bringing people together that do not contradict the need for a common language. But where these so legitimate means (sport, music, fashion) of bringing people together go wrong, is where big capitalist corporations use them for their sole interest! In “NO LOGO” , Naomi Klein is clear about how capitalists use these cultural tools to advertise and always sell more while the factory’s workers are kept in sinister conditions all over the world.

In conclusion, in the above section, we have stressed that capitalism and globalisation are not in contradiction: globalisation is just the expansion of capitalism on a global scale and under different faces (economical, cultural, political, ideological). Naomi Klein and those who think like her are convinced that globalisation cannot be a good thing if multinational and transnational corporations were no longer subject to national policies and law. The WTO, she says, does not speak for the poor, it plays the capitalist game. That why, to regain hope for a better world where exploitation and misery are banned, there is a need for resistance. That’s where comes the anti-capitalist movement, quite a disparate movement (culture jammer, RTS, Jubilee 2000…), but with the same objectives: down exploitation and imperialism!

Section 2: The anti-globalisation movement

a/ History of anti-capitalism movement

Naomi Klein (11) in “NO LOGO” describes the actual global world as a place where there is no job, no space and even no choice. The cause of this sad situation lies with multinational capitalist corporations and the way they control the world. Through organisation like the IMF, the World Bank and the WTO they tried to decide about world politics in a period of cold war. But then after the cold war, what was expected to become a global free world, Naomi Klein, Ellwood Wayne and James Petras notice that it is simply a game of multinational corporations: the capitalist multinational corporations ( the 500 biggest, says Elwood, are American) have been using their political influence to shape the world policies. The hand of these corporations is every where but what is revolting, is the fact that exploitation is the sole motivation of these capitalist. Privatisation policies, deregulation and free trade barriers are just part of these corporation’s game to control the global market and politics. Curiously, cutting thousand of jobs and paying low wages brings in a terrible dilemma: how workers can survive with miserable wages? Who will buy these huge amount of output if people are unemployed? Even though the price is cut off (because the production in developing countries is cheap), what is the deal? The over-capacity will be, says Ellwood, ( 12) the result of this capitalist production: too many goods for too few buyers! Because one thing is to cut labour costs, the other is the global demand over time!

Naomi Klein highlights the fact that everywhere, advertisement material invade simple people’s life like to remind to everyone, every time and everywhere that all is about consumption. Culture, fashion, education, health,.. Nothing is left outside the Ad. But wonders Naomi and, with her so many anti-capitalist consumers: where consumers will get money if jobs are cut and wages lowered? Why do we need to consume “brands”? Where do come brands and what do they bring the global happiness? And as exploitation of the poor, exploitation of the environment, unemployment and misery are hidden behind each “brand” then people must take conscience of who is leading the world. Behind all multinational (Nike in Cambodia and Vietnam, Shell in Nigeria,…) lie misery, exploitation, privatisation and dictatorship. Philippe Legrain opposes the above argument but our purpose in this project is the anti- globalisation views.

Already in the early nineties, the culture jamming in America (13 ), using “spray-paint can” to alter Ad messages, started a kind of resistance to the symbol of capitalistic exploitation.

Later on,(14)

- in January 1 1994: With a battle cry of "Ya Basta" (enough is enough), People's Global Action (PGA) was formed in southern Mexico and its demonstration coincided with the formation of the North American Free Trade Agreement. Today, PGA is the largest umbrella organisation in the anti-capitalism movement.

- in May 1996: Nearly 10,000 demonstrators occupy a stretch of the M41 in west London. The event was organised by a new group calling itself Reclaim the Street (RTS). Naomi Klein (p312- 313) writes: “ the RTS has been hijacking busy streets, major intersections and even stretches of highway for spontaneous gatherings. In an instant, a crowd of seemingly impromptu patyers transforms a traffic artery into a surrealist playpen… before the day, everything is kept secret so that the police cannot prevent the demo… the event takes culture jamming’s philosophy of reclaiming public space to another level,… it attempts to fill it with an alternative vision of what society might look like in the absence of commercial control”

- in May 1998: First RTS "global party". Illegal street parties were held simultaneously in 17 cities across the globe. The internet was used as the main means of communication for the first time. On the fiftieth anniversary of the World Trade Organisation held in Geneva, writes Naomi Klein, with Indian farmers, landless brazilian peasants, unemployed French, Italian and german workers and international human-rights groups, RTS took its place in a fledging international grassroots movement against transactional corporations and their agenda of economic globalisation.

-in 1999: on June 18 : Thousands mass in the City of London for the inaugural "carnival against capitalism" or J18. Similar demonstrations were held around the world. On October 16, Groups calling for a review of immigration and asylum laws in Europe held simultaneous demonstration in nine countries across the continent. The action was timed to coincide with European Council Summit in Tampere, Finland. On November 30, The infamous "battle for Seattle". Tens of thousands of demonstrators from nearly 1,200 non-governmental organisations in 87 countries called for wholesale reform of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) which was meeting in Seattle.

- in 2000: on April 18, Protesters attempt to block a meeting of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank in Washington DC. But Police reacted much more quickly than in Seattle. On May 1, Central London descends into chaos as several thousand protestors descend on Whitehall. The police operation - the biggest in the capital for a political demonstration for 30 years - are criticised for taking a 'softly softly' approach. Thirty people are arrested.

- In 2001: on April 24 Activists disrupt the Summit of the Americas in Quebec City. Police used tear gas, water cannon and rubber bullets to keep protesters at bay. Some demonstrators smashed windows, started fires and threw Molotov cocktails. More than 400 people were arrested. On May 1, Dozens of protesters are arrested around the country. Anti-capitalist demonstrations take place around the world and In London under a "May Day monopoly" banner, converging on Oxford Circus. Central London is paralysed by another day of violence and some shops are attacked by a hardcore of protesters. On June 16, Three people are shot and wounded, one seriously, by Swedish police outside the European Union's summit in Gothenburg. It is the first time live firearms are used at an anti-capitalism demonstration. On July 20, One protester is shot dead and Italian police seriously wound another as the G8 summit in Genoa is marred by the worst violence in the history of the anti-capitalism movement. Carlo Giuli becomes the movement's first fatality .ON 13, 14 and 15 December, workers and young people from all over Europe converged on Brussels in their thousands to protest at the European Union (EU) summit.

- In mid February and march 2003, all over the world, everyday sees more demonstration against the war on Iraq that is assimilated to American imperialism and the greed of capitalists corporations to control the world wealth such as “oil”. People still have in mind how Ken saro Wiwa died in Nigeria because he challenged the “Shell” exploitation. Muslims are coming together as an homogeneous force of resistance to Imperialism for which Islam is synonymous of world terrorism. on 16th april in Athena, demonstrators against the occupation of Iraq after the fall of Saddam Hussein, clash with police at the EU summit in Athens.

On the economical aspect, the anti- globalisation movement has brought to light the fact that, the Breton woods institution was just one side of the capitalist’ game against the poor. Treaties like NAFTA (north American free trade agreement), says Ellwood, (15) and new trade rules backed by the WTO, empower corporations while restricting national governments from interfering with the “wisdom” of the market. The globe’s major corporations use The WTO to codify the rules of world trade in a way that gives them complete freedom. An obvious example is the MAI ( Multilateral Agreement on Investment) in 1995, drafted by the international chamber of commerce and approved by the OECD. The MAI had to be endorsed by the WTO. But before the WTO could adopt it, a copy fell into hand of activists in Canada who posted it on the net. Then everything was clarified: the agreement was to give private companies the same legal status as nation-states in all countries that were party to WTO. Curiously, corporations would be able to defend their right against objections of sovereign government; foreign investors could challenge public funding of social programs…; governments could not give preference to domestic buyer when privatising; government could not demand that foreign investment benefit local community or national economy; there could be no limit to profit repatriation…. In summary, as concluded the activists Tony Clarke and Maude Barlow, the MAI could provide corporations with substantive rights to challenge governments policies, programs and laws all over the world but without any obligation in return!

By may 1998 the public opposition had won the battle against the MAI. Sadly, since then more than 800 Free Zones Trades (FZT) are officially operating in third world with almost same privileges as the MAI. But anti-capitalist activists are investigating.

And examples of economical imperialism many. For example, in order to provide “aid”, western agencies demand access to strategic raw materials, free entry into domestic markets and elimination of social regulations. “Cooperation”, says Veltmeyer, (16) means subordination of aid recipient to the donor; a cooperation within unequal relations of power and economic exploitation merely reinforcing and deepening injustice. Social assistance channelled via NGOs to ameliorate poverty is conditioned on the acceptance of neo-liberal macroeconomic policies and structures. In reality NGOs are not “non-governmental” organizations. They receive funds from overseas government; their programs are not accountable to local people but to overseas donors who “review” and “oversee” the performance of the NGOs according to their own criteria and interests. NGO officials are self-appointed and one of their key tasks is to design proposals that will secure funds. In fact, NGOs foster a new type of cultural and economic colonialism under the guise of a new internationalism.

On the political scene, Veltemeyer abounds in evidence (finland 1918, Guyana 1961-62, Chile 1970-73, Iran 1954, Haiti1994...) of the fact that, no matter government or NGO, everything is decided by the capitalists for their own interest. Talking about democracy, Veltmeyer says that there are limits on democracy even within the most “advanced” state committed to democracy as an end in itself. When a democratic state is governed by the capitalist class or, more likely, operated in its interest, democracy is viewed as “good in itself”. however when it provides a platform for transforming social relations and property rights, the tendency is to view it as a “luxury”, as expendable and properly replaceable by an authoritarian system. Capitalist democracy, he says, does not exist independently of class interests and class conflict. Even when it comes to domain like “development”, “justice”, “cooperation” and “aid”, the use and perversion of political language is an obvious sign of domination of the imperial power over third world countries. These terms are used confusedly even in catastrophic situation like the 1994 Rwanda, where often victims are confused with executioners depending on the interest of the imperial power as illustrated by French politics.

On the environment issue, it is known that the increasingly global economy is completely dependant on the larger economy of the planet Earth. The worry is the disintegration of the basic life-support system that we take for granted: the water cycle, the composition of the atmosphere, the assimilation of waste and recycling of nutrients, the pollination of crops, the delicate interplay of species are all in danger. One example of environment harming is the market of hazardous waste with developing countries as shown below:

( between 1986 - 1992, seven Western Africa countries signed contract (short and long-term) against cash to receive for disposal these wastes. data might have been manipulated. below, are few cases:

  • Benin, Contract of 1.5million tonnes/year of industrial waste from USA and Europe

  • Congo, Contract of 2million tonnes of solvent from USA and Europe

  • Gabon, Unspecified quantity of uranium mining wastes from USA

  • Guinea Bissau, 5 years Contract of 15million tonnes of industrial and chemical wastes from UK, Switzerland and USA

  • Guinea,

  • Contract of 15.000 tonnes of incinerator ash from USA, Norway

  • Equatorial Guinea, Contract of 2 million tonnes of mixed chemical wastes from Europe

  • Nigeria, 3800 tonnes of mixed chemical and industrial wastes dumped illegally in Koko from Europe

  • Senegal, Negotiating for unspecified wastes for landfill

    From: Jennifer, Elliot, 1994, An introduction to sustainable development, London, Routledge

    The impact of free market deregulation on the environment , say Friend Of The Earth (FoE), is that budget priorities are often directed towards business promotion instead of environment conservation as it happened with the cases above and with Brazil in 1999 that cut its environmental budget in order to respond to IMF regulations.

    In conclusion, the protest in the street is just an opposition to the neo-liberal assumption that free market and its self-evolving dynamic will bring employment, wealth and prosperity! The examples explained above; the examples of Brazil destroying its forest and African countries putting the environment at risk are a proof of the danger of free market game. And anti-capitalist movement are, by all means, trying to fight this system and render people aware of the hidden agenda of free trade.

    B/ membership

    All group that work for the anti-capitalism movement do not work in a coordinated way. They do not relate and do not consult in a kind of assembly. They just use the internet as mean of communication with million of unidentified surfers who get involved every year in the anti-capitalism protest. The carnival ambiance is for more in what attract thousands of protesters among whom many have not a broad idea of what “exploitation” is like. (17) This fact is translated by Naomi Klein (p312- 313) when she writes: “ the RTS has been hijacking busy streets, major intersections and even stretches of highway for spontaneous gatherings. In an instant, a crowd of seemingly impromptu patyers transforms a traffic artery into a surrealist playpen… before the day, everything is kept secret so that the police cannot prevent the demo… the event takes culture jamming’s philosophy of reclaiming public space to another level,… it attempts to fill it with an alternative vision of what society might look like in the absence of commercial control” Seattle brought together representatives of Third World peasants, French small farmers, ecological organisations, NGOs, Third World workers, indigenous groups and, most amazingly to many participants, the American trade unions. Some are organisations of activist minorities, whose power is restricted by that fact. Others are organisations attempting to represent much larger numbers of people. But these too vary. Peasant organisations, for instance, rarely represent a homogenous group of people, for as capitalism has drawn countries into its orbit it has encouraged a differentiation within the peasantry, with the better off peasants aspiring to be capitalist farmers, intent on buying up the land of poorer peasants and employing some as wage labour. (18) The sole thing that protesters on the street share with faceless organisers is “the internet tool”. Millions of young people are informed through their computer on the program and the need of demonstration.

    c/ Goals

    When Gorges Bush Goes against the Kyoto treaty and global warming, does he decide without preparing the media and the public? When Tony Blair decide the crusade against Iraq, does he need to explain and explain again? Why? Because the anti-capitalist movement and environmental NGO are such a social force, that can not be ignored today. “The demonstrators are right to say there's injustice, poverty, environmental degradation... If globalisation works only for the benefit of the few, then it will fail and will deserve to fail", Acknowledged Blair (19) who understands that uncontrollable demonstration is susceptible to degenerate in riot, disorder and eventually revolt.

    What this movement has achieved in recent years is quite astonishing. The biggest goal is obviously its recognition as a powerful global resistance group representing the civil society, though this may be a loose concept. On the same day, there can be simultaneously demonstrations in several cities around the world. Such situation obliges government and their security forces to mobilise enormous resources in order to contain such manifestations which can lead to unexpected crisis! Many liberals who dismiss the anti-globalisation movement's economic arguments still view it sympathetically because they see it as the flowering of a democratic protest spirit dormant during the apathetic '80s. And even some in the political centre treat the movement with kid gloves because they see it as an expression of that third way sacrament: civil society.(20) The WTO, has in its attribution the intellectual property. The law on patent in pharmaceutical domain has revealed to be object to huge anti-capitalist pressures in the RSA’s “AIDS” case. And in some aspect, the anti-capitalist movement won the battle against pharmaceutical corporations and their tool “the WTO”: many rallied the argument that “there can not be a global village where only few can afford health care”!

    d/ Vision

    There are many vision and none at all. (21).Many in the sense that for each demonstration, there are various target: imperialism expansion, immigration laws, working conditions… Protesters, though they add to the movement weight, do not always understand much about world politics and therefore do not question much about the usefulness of such demonstration!

    In conclusion, this section tried to trace back the history of anti-capitalist movements, highlighting the reason why they are on the street and what they have achieved. The next chapter will focus on where this movement meets with Islam.

    Chap2: Islam and anti-globalisation.

    Number of religious sects meet the anti-capitalism feeling. For example, The Dalai Lama sometimes appears as the one "world leader" capable of speaking truth both to the remnants of the Communist oppression & the forces of Capitalist inhumanity.

    But on its own, after the fall of communism, Islam stands as the sole major ideology facing capitalism.(22) Islam has seen itself as the enemy of imperial Christianity & European imperialism almost from the moment of its inception. During the 20th century it functioned as a "third way" against both Communism & Capitalism, and in the context of the new One World it now constitutes by definition one of the very few existing mass movements which cannot be englobed into the unity of any would-be Consensus. Since Christianity is the religion that "gave birth" to Capitalism, its position in relation to the present apotheosis of Capitalism is necessarily more problematic than Islam's. As an ally of Capital against "Godless Communism", Christianity could preserve the illusion of power, at least until 13 years ago. Since then Christianity is weakened and may consider anti-globalisation protester on the other side, not yet with Islam, but who knows?

    Section 1: Islam as a “world view”

    In today’s vocabulary, when the word “fundamentalism” or “terrorism” are used, what comes to mind straight is “Islam” and secondly “Arabs“. Islam represents one fifth of the world population, occupying almost 54 countries around the world mostly in Asia and Africa. This might mean in other world that it is a “third world’s religion”. And if the logic could go further, it is the “world view” of the poor standing face to face against “capitalism, Christianity, individualism, relativism and secularism” as the rich’s “world view“. It is accepted that there are three “ world views”: Christianity, Islam and Marxism. These three philosophies are rooted in their religious, economical and political views. Christianity and Islam share their religious and economical background: they are in contradiction with Marxism on both point. Both were opposed to Marxism. As Marxism has failed, Christianity and Islam are thought to be in a sort of cold confrontation. While Christianity represents the richest and their economical, political and cultural values; Islam seems to be the voice of the poorest and a unifying tool of resistance to what is taken as anti-social values. Islam, says Ibrahim Abdulla ( 23) is not a mere belief or form of worship, it is a doctrine relating to the whole of personal and community life. Christianity, though not a political doctrine, has been at some point in the history, in the Middle-Ages essentially, both a religion and a social organisation’s tool. But with the enlightenment and the revolutions ( American and French revolution) that resulted in institutionalising secularisation, it lost its grip on the community’s organisation. At this stage, what had been a “Christian world view” becomes a “liberal World view”, a political, philosophical and economical ideology inherited from the enlightenment. Liberalism defends values like limited government, individual freedom, private property, privatisation, secularism, distinction politics-religion and public order. Marxism was a reaction to this ideology‘s mainline. Islam, by contrast, is at its beginning a religion, a culture and a political force. Since its inception, it has known few schism. Contrary to Jesus for whom, “to Caesar his due” meant somehow that religion had nothing to do with politics, Mohammed was a political and military leader. So Islam provide to all aspect of social life: culture, law, economics and political organisation. Politically, Islam backs democratic practice such as the will of the majority and the protection of minorities. It does not acknowledge “inheritance” or revolutionary government as a mean of transmission of political power. (24) Although most Muslim countries and third world countries in general are dominated by government issued from the two above processes, it is more a matter of precaution to avoid considerable loss in human life that an eventual civil war may cause. If public order can be established, then it is recommended to population to observe obedience to the authority.

    Economically, Islam acknowledges the “liberal” right to private propriety and freedom of trade and commerce. Usury and all corruptive economic behaviour such as bribery, monopoly and unlimited freedom of property are forbidden because the Islamic economy is committed to social duty. Islam does not oppose liberalism but rather try to moderate the excess of liberal politics, economics and culture.

    Culturally, for Islam, individuals are nothing outside the community. In each community, there must be a social organisation and means to strengthen the rules so that individual are bound to observe them. Education and strong social institutions such as family and marriages are among those mostly targeted. Islam provides the family, as basis of the community, with directions in cultural matters and what is to be taken as forbidden. The Islamic law does not operate far outside religion. That is why for example, Cutting the hand of a thief seems acceptable. Women have a special treatment in Islamic society: without keeping women in control, no community can survive with its heritage and its culture!

    In this section, we tried to distinguish Islam from other world views, highlighting its mainline before presenting, in the next section, in an anti globalisation perspective.

    Section 2: Islam as an anti-globalisation force

    As stressed in the introduction, globalisation is not in contradiction with western imperialism. What started centuries ago as colonisation and civilisation of what was considered primitive societies, has taken today another face: one world with free trade, free barrier, deregulation and privatisation.

    But if the pre-colonisation period was characterised by political, economical and cultural distinction between the North and the South, today, says Huntington(25), only cultural distinction remains. People identify themselves with cultural groups ( tribes, ethnic groups and religious communities) and use politics, because states are major international actors, to reaffirm that identity.

    Huntington divides the post-cold war in more than seven cultural groups: the western civilization, the Latin American, the African, the Islamic, the Sinic, the Orthodox, the Buddhist and the Japanese civilisation. But he underlines that culture is a unifying force even when political ideology is different. That is why countries that belonged to different political ideologies (communism or capitalism) in the cold war period, are now regrouping according to their cultural identity.

    The obvious example is the Muslim countries in Middle East, in Asia and Africa that are coming together as one single bloc.

    The high demography rate in those countries and high emigration of their population is changing sensibly the world equilibrium. Even in the USA, the Muslim component is growing quickly and is attracting more followers mostly in the black community under what is called “the nation of Islam”. But black, Arabs or Asians, Muslims around the world feel that they belong to the same cultural group and this is expressed in the way they react to the world politics.

    Already in the cold-war period, the 1967 occupation of Arab land by Israelis showed that, because of the same religious culture, all Muslims all over the world were expressing the same frustration. Since then, as Israel was supported by the West, the resentment has gone growing against the West and what it represents culturally and politically. While anti-globalisation movement are expressing mostly opposition to the economical system, Muslims are more preoccupied by political and cultural questions. But as politics and economics inter-react, as highlighted by Marx, it may be wrong to pretend that Islam is not preoccupied by the economical aspect of the struggle.

    2. A. politics, fundamentalism and terrorism

    There are, says Halliday (26), 54 Muslim states but they are not a coherent economical or military unit to fill the “threat” that represented communism. Among the 28 Muslim countries (with Muslims majority), there the 6 biggest oil producer in the world. All are situated in the Gulf. Ankie Hoogvelt Writes that at the basis of the division of the Ottoman Empire, after its defeat in WW1, were the capitalist strategy. England and France created in the Gulf small states with huge oil resources and big countries with few resources. The logic was that a small country has few problems and can respond easily to the capitalist request with less complication. This is one of the factor why imperialist are always at war in the Gulf the case of the first Iraqi war: they protect the capitalist interest. With the Israel-Palestine question, unfortunately, it is these poor big countries that have to deal with the fleeing Palestinian refugees. As Arab and Muslim in general feel that all their misery is the result of American and their Zionist ally, frustration is translated in anti-American feeling. But with the success of the Iranian revolution in 1979 with Khomeiny as an Islamic leader, Muslim brotherhood around the world felt strengthened. Though Islam tolerated better capitalism than communism, the resistance to imperialism struggle will be translated in the mounting of Islamic fundamentalism. Terrorism against Western interests will be used as a mean to make various Islamist claims heard: the question of Palestine and, recently, the imperialist occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq are among Muslim’s grief against the West. This is another factor why imperialist are in the Gulf to fight back and contain these movement. It is wrong to thing that only Muslims are fundamentalist: Christians, Hindu, Jews, Protestants… all have their fundamentalism or extremism movement but often it represents just few people. In any case, writes Marty (27), each of these groups is a direct and self conscious response to modernity.

    Installing in poor Muslim countries a political body that are pro Western is not the issue to the question of resistance because, for the moment, there is a high confusion among Islamist fighters. For example the “nation of Islam” in the USA with Farrakhan translates its struggle in a sort of “black and white” opposition ( with political and economical goals) responding so to the major problem of exclusion experienced by afro-American who constitute the mainstream of the church. Also there is a kind of political struggle between different social groups (Chia, Sunni, Arabs..). One of the reason of imperialist intervention in the Muslim countries is the lack of democracy. But is democracy measured by the electoral participation and the rule of the majority? Even in the Western democracies, underlines Halliday ( 28) electoral participation is decreasing and the public trust in political institutions is in fall: this fact may be interpreted that today’s Western government do not necessarily represent the will of the people despite free elections. If different institutions apply the rule of law, it is somehow because of the police’s interventionism. A body that the “so-called democratically elected body” manipulates at will. The independence of the judiciary remains one of the guard of “ Western democracies” and that is the biggest difference with developing countries (Muslim and others) where justice cannot contradict the government.

    When western imperialists decide to implement “democracy” in some Muslim countries, what does it mean then? Are they policing and control the application of democratic rules? Or are they only getting rid of all anti-Western government and leave the people at their misery the case of Afghanistan, Iraq… Then it becomes evident that any Muslim country can become the victim of American imperialism at any time: firstly, there is no Muslim coalition force to oppose any imperialist attack; secondly, in the UN security council, Muslim countries have no “veto right”. The “Iraq war2” proved that the UN was unable to stop the imperialist ambitions and this fact may give a new justification to Islamic fundamentalism and extremism. Pan-Islamism (Islam Dom) is not established because writes Nafissi (p111) quoting Roy, Islamism is unable to move beyond nationalism and ethnicity.

    But, the growth of fundamentalism in the Middle East, a feature of contemporary Islam, is, says Whittaker (29), something that worries observers: Muslims who belong to the creed are the most intolerant and their narrow mindedness renders them incapable of any agreement or compromise with those who think differently. For these fundamentalists:

    - unquestioning obedience and fanatical devotion to the “voice of God”

    - strict observation of the code of the Koran and the rigid shariah code of conduct: unbelievers and infidels are to be conquered or destroyed: It is a sacred duty and a crusade.

    - the will of God and the doctrine in the Koran make believers’ actions legitimate however unrestrained and violent they may be.

    - to be tempted by heresy or failure to carry out a mission is unpardonable Some, says Bobby Sayyid ( 30), consider Islamic fundamentalism to be only a reaction to feminism because it sees the role of women as having a wider symbolic value, reflecting the morality of their society; but, it is also a challenger to the world order pointing out the limitations of the West, as a political tradition. Even when they are not fundamentalist, Muslims, writes Whitaker, have certain beliefs and practices reinforcing Islam as a “way of life” in contrast to “take-it-or-leave-it” Christianity. They are idealists and those who are devout must be prepared to embark upon “Jihad”. A concept that can have a political as well as a religious meaning. A concept that is exploited by extremists for “terrorism purpose”. But “terrorism” is a vague concept that has different meaning for various users (political, media, victim, author). In general it is related the use of violence to inculcate fear among the public in order to coerce a government to satisfy claims of sub national groups or individuals. The prejudice and intolerance for whatever is perceived as “terrorist” undermines the image of Islam because, as says Bruce Hoffman (31), half of today’s terrorist groups are classified as religious (islamist) in motivation. Also the fact that fundamentalist do not acknowledge the distinction politics-religion raise questions about such political views that prefer the former Afghanistan regime or the Khomeiny’s one to the Kuwaitian one (the religion of the state is Islam, mosque and Muslim institutions are administered by the state and religious officials are govt employee).

    The recognition of Islam (political, cultural and legal doctrine) as filling the vacuum let by communism may be the beginning of a global solution to Islamic resistance. But then it is not to the West to recognize this place to Islam: it is the responsibility of all Muslims countries to overcome their internal division and the confusion of Islamist activists. It is their responsibility to stand as a unified force (politically, culturally and economically) that can not only challenge the West but also that can respond to the dialectic of universal order! Sadly, Islam Dom, as a political unity that could represent a coherent anti-globalisation force, is, says Nafissi Mohammad, an utopia!

    2. B. Islam and economics

    The IMF and World Bank politics of privatisation, deregulation has increased sensibly unemployment and poverty in all third world countries. Muslim countries do not need, says Umer Chapra (32), to copy on the West because the rich capitalist and socialist countries as well as developing economies are, unable to realise efficiency and equity. To realise both efficiency and equity, it is, writes Chapra, necessary to focus on human beings themselves rather than on the market or the state. Human beings constitutes the living and indispensable element of the economic system.

    Unlike both capitalism and socialism, the goals of Islam are absolute and a logical outcome of its underlying philosophy. The strategy of Islam, continues Chapra, consist of reorganising the entire economic system with a set of four indispensable and mutually-reinforcing elements:

    a/ a socially-agreed filter mechanism. Capitalism gives license to consumers to consume what they want. It also gives license to producers to produce what they want: the market is determined by price: the price is the filter. As a strategy, to decentralise the decision-making process of the market system is not a best strategy: it democratises the decision-making by enabling all individuals, consumers and producers, to participate reaching so some efficiency. Islam introduces the moral filter to solve the problem: resources that do not contribute positively to human well being are eliminated at source before exposure to the second filter of market prices. Who is capable of providing such a moral filter? The views of Islam, as that of some other religions is that divine sanction and belief in life after death are both necessary. But in this view, it is still the community as a whole unified and ready to act together, that can guarantee such filter so that individual do not abuse of their liberty!

    b/ a strong motivating system to induce the individual to render his best in his own interest as well as in the interest of the state. Efficiency and equity can not be realised by merely having a proper filter mechanism. It is also necessary to motivate individuals to act accordingly. Islam does not require individual to deny their self interest in the world. Islam recognises what Marxism seeks to deny, the contribution of individual self-interest through profit and private property to individual initiative, driven efficiency.

    c/ restructuring the whole economy with the objectives of realising the maqasid in spite of scarce resources. It is not a laissez-faire, not collectivisation and not secularism.

    d/ a positive and strong goal oriented role for the government.

    In conclusion, though agreeing with the anti-capitalist against the Bretton Woods’ policies, Islam does not offer much alternative. The Islamist economic programmes and the promises of Islamic justice, writes Nafissi (p112), are vague, inconsistent and inoperable!

    2. C. Islam and the environment

    Allah, says Harfiyah Abdel Halim,( 33) gave the responsibility to humanity as a “khalifah” to care for his creation…each of us has a responsibility to use what little power we have to make things better not worse. When each person can see beyond their own individual needs to the effects they produce on the rest of the community, does the whole community begin to work properly and adapt to survive as a viable organism. Unity, trusteeship and accountability that is Tawhid, Khalifah, and Akirah, the three central concept of Islam, are also the pillars of the environmental ethics of Islam. Today’s environmental problems are

    - the greenhouse effect

    - the changing climate patterns

    - the razing of the tropical rainforest

    - the extermination of wildlife

    - the pollution of the atmosphere and the air we breathe

    - the bestrewing of land, sea and outer space with rubbish

    - the pollution of mind and consciousness All these environmental issues have their answer in “Islamic theology (‘aga’id)”, in “Islamic law (fiqh)“ and in “personal spiritual development (tasawwuf)” The exploitation and treatment of oil harm the environment at a very high point. The overexploitation of earth wealth is against Quranic teaching: the environment and its wealth belongs to the whole creation. It is not ethical to respond to capitalist ways of over production that harms our environment.

    Many issues on the environment remain unsolved (: the convention of Montreal, Rio de Janeiro, and Kyoto have reflected some willingness to deal with the issue of climate change but no state has taken decisive measure to curb the motor transport; the destruction of world’s forest continue; the spread of new diseases is high… Islam, says Harfiyah (p8), should combat the George Bush’s assertion that producing more wealth and employment come before environment problems. When considering the amount of hazardous waste taken to some developing countries in western Africa between 1986- 1992 (see table on p12) it is obvious that America cares less about environment issues and Islam does not caution such politics.

    In conclusion, what Muslim countries have done so far is to sign treaties that protect the environment. For example, most have signed the “Basel Convention” and took position against the import-export-transit of hazardous wastes. This is just one message that meets the anti-globalisation struggle for the environment! In theory at least!

    2. D. Islam and global culture

    Islam is a whole culture. It is not synonym of fundamentalism, all religions have their extremist. It is not against multiculturalism but it is against Consumerism that globalisation and deregulation bring with them. Islam, writes Bobby S.Sayyid, (34) rejects the planetary culture of consumerism. The kind of message and global youth culture that “MTV generation” diffuse is not welcome in Muslim culture. It is known that fashion, music and sport are a target of capitalist. Everything is for sale. Even Women have become a commodity. Here Islam opposes consumerism that leads kids, teenagers and women to be corrupted by medias and their messages. In Algeria for example says Haynes (35), the reforms claimed by Islamists wanted a stricter dress code for women, more religious broadcast on radio and television, and the banning of consumption of alcohol in public places… On the women question, there can be no compromise because “ a community is what women want it to be” and Islam is about community. That is why, for Martin Riesebrodt, ( 36)islamic fundamentalism is essentially a patriarchal protest movement against selected aspect of secularised modernity such as the western women’s liberation movement.

    Obviously, money, time, concentration and sense of duty become loose concept once women are lost in the fashion consumerist ideology. Today debate on feminism argues against the veil, but, Muslim girls living in Western societies are willingly coming back to veiling. A veil, obligatory or not, protect the modesty of women and gives them dignity: contrary to what suggest the feminist group, it has nothing to do with obligation! The evidence is that Muslim girls born in the West, the veil is becoming a new fashion and a sign of resistance to western image of women. A woman is not a commodity. Single women ideology and lesbianism are not true values: a women has a special place to fulfil in society, that of the corner of the family and hence of the community.

    In conclusion, by controlling medias and dress codes, Muslim countries send a message of resistance to corrupted western culture and its negation of community. Fighting against the “consumerism culture” is one aspect of Islamic anti-globalisation struggle. But at this point, there may be divergence with westerners “anti-globalisation” movements for whom the question is not about “controlling which media the public should watch” but “how art, sport, music are exploited by capitalist”!

    Conclusion

    This project attempted to show that capitalism, as says Marx, dates from antiquity (slave mode of production). But globalisation as a result of liberalism ideology took over in the 18th century with the invention of railway and telegraph. Marxism and socialism will stop its expansion for almost 90 years and then will fail, leaving the way free. Almost instantly a new opposition to the new world politics will take place, giving some weight to the long time Islamic struggle against what is called “American imperialism” (for Veltmeyer, globalisation means American imperialism!) Why anti-globalisation? Opponents of globalisation say free trade, privatisation and deregulations lead to exploitation of the world's poor, the workers and the environment. They say it makes it easier for rich companies to act with less accountability. They also claim that countries' individual cultures are becoming overpowered by Americanisation. Few people like Philippe Legrain do not agree with this views car for them, the sole way of solving misery and inequality around the world is to come together in a global village where trade is free!

    Anti-capitalism isn't Communism or Marxism. It isn't anarchism, it says nothing about government or freedom but, in treating all states as oppressive, some think that the anti-globalisation shows traces of anarchism. It isn't nihilism; it is about improvement and change, not total destruction. Anti-capitalism isn't Socialism either, it involves the elimination of capitalized wealth not wealth redistribution. More specifically, Anti-capitalism is about eliminating the profit motive as the icon of the world economic order. It could just as well be called Anti-profitism. (37). The alternative to globalisation can be summarized, says Veltmeyer (38), by “ neither free market nor bureaucratic statism”. The prestige of the anti-globalisation movement doesn't stem from its economic evidence; it stems from its claim to represent the will of the people.

    Islam meets with the anti-globalisation protest in many aspects. Though a “geo-political Islam Dom” has difficulties to find an identity, Islam, as a Huntington’s civilisation, stands against the western declining liberal civilisation. On the politics, Islam accepts the liberal principle of “limited government” though authoritarianism applies in most Muslim countries. Against imperialism, Islam (various islamist groups) translates its struggle by fundamentalism and terrorism. Recently pacific Muslim demonstrations, in communion with westerners, were held all over the world against American imperialism and the war on Iraq. On the economics, Islam is not opposed to the liberal principle of private property. It recognises that equality and property are antagonistic and that, public order is important. While free barrier and movement of goods are welcome, Islam meets the anti-globalisation movement by resisting privatisation of public services and deregulation policies. On the environment question, Islam stands with the anti-globalisation in most of their claim, on climate change, on hazardous wastes… Culturally, Islam has a different approach of the struggle. Though agreeing with the protest against exploitation of sport, music, art and fashion, Islam does not caution the freedom of media when this interferes with social values and community education.

    The fact that the anti-capitalism movement and Islam do not offer a coherent alternative to globalization, the kind of communism ideology, is very damaging for the movement because then people wonder: what to do to solve the capitalism contradictions? For idealist Muslims, a solution to the problems of secularism, individualism, exploitation, poverty and imperialism have their very solution in the Quran: God’s law. “God’s law” is not the problem for the Westerners: the assumption that, since the enlightenment, we live in a secularised world, says Berger (39) is false. The fact, says Haynes, is that majority of people in the West and in America particularly, attend church service on a regular basis. Contrary to Marx for whom “religion is the people‘s opium“, it is obvious that in Christian or Muslim world, religion provides a powerful political symbol of mass mobilization. This means that politics and religion interact (40). But how dialectical is the Islamic fundamentalism and, sometimes, extremism? But how much freedom and liberty Islam offers to individuals? In the West people have freedom of choice for their religious beliefs but Islamic fundamentalism does not give option to the mass. Then Islam, though an anti-globalization force, does not seem to offer enough guarantee to simple basic individual human right as seen by the Western media, one of the powerful tool of capitalist imperialism and cultural colonization!

    Anti-globalisation movement is growing. The Islamic opposition, despite its internal contradiction, to the Western imperialism, is strengthening too. The movement against the "inevitable" global advance of capitalist power has not been cowed by the imperialists’ military and ideological offensive in the name of the "war against terrorism". Indeed their offensive has underlined and exacerbated the dangerous instability of global capitalism. And the growing sense of “global Islamic brotherhood” could, with little tact, recuperate all these people in an Islamic perspective! But for this to happen, Islam must be presented and reflected in a new way (41). Islam Fundamentalism and the "gates of Interpretation" of the Shariah must be re-opened in a kind of revolution, not slammed shut forever, because if a genuine anti-Capitalist coalition is to appear in the world, it cannot happen without Islam. (42) -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Bibliography

    (1) Forward, Martin , 2001, Inter-religion dialogue, England, One world, p116

    (2) Petras, J & Veltmeyer, 2001, Globalisation unmasked, London, Zed books, p61

    (3) Penton, Dave, 2001, Marx on globalisation, London, Lawrence &Wishart Limited, P3

    (4) Halliday, Fred , 2001, The world at 2000, New York, Palgrave, p61

    (5) Legrain, Philippe, 2002, Open World:/ the truth about globalisation, London, Abacus

    (6) Gray, J, 1986, Liberalism, England, Open University press

    (7) Legrain, P, 2002, Open World:/ the truth about globalisation, London, Abacus.

    (8) Ellwood, Wayne , 2001, The no-nonsense guide to globalisation, UK, New internationalist publications ltd, p41

    9. Legrain, Philippe, 2002, Open World:/ the truth about globalisation, London, Abacus.

    (10) Hoogvelt, Ankie, 1997, Globalisation and the post-colonial world, London, Macmillan Press, p182

    (11) 12. Klein, Naomi , 2001, No Logo, London. Flamingo.

    (12) Ellwood, Wayne , op cit, p 68

    (13) Klein, Naomi , op cit, p285

    (14) - http://www.guardian.co.uk/mayday/story/ http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/Brussels.htm

    (15) Ellwood, Wayne, 2001, op cit, p 64-69

    (16) Petras, J & H, Veltmeyer, 2001, op cit, p 121-135

    (17) http://indiawest.editthispage.com/2001/04/20

    (18) http://www.marxists.de/anticap/theprax/part2.htm

    (19) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1953864.stm

    (20) (http://www.tnr.com/punditry/beinart041601.html

    (21) http://www.dsp.org.au/apiaustralia/Boyle_paper2002.htm

    (22) http://www.hermetic.com/bey/millennium/religion.html

    (23) Al Marzouqi, Ibrahim, 2000, human right in Islamic law, Abu Dhabi,…, p 423

    (24) Ibidem, p363

    (25) Huntington, Samuel P. , 1996, The clash of civilisations and the remaking of world order, New York, Simon &Schuster, p20

    (26) Halliday, Fred , 2001, The world at 2000, New York, Palgrave, p 123

    (27) Marty, Martin E. & R.Scott Appleby, 1992, The fundamentalist challenge to modern world, Boston, Beacon Press, p10

    (29) Whittaker, David. J. , 2002, Terrorism, understanding the global threat, London, Pearson education ltd, p95

    (30) S.Sayyid, Bobby , 1997, A fundamental fear, Euro centrism and the emergence of Islamism, London, Zed books ltd, p9

    (31) see in Whittaker, David. J, op cit, p93

    (32) Chapra, M. Umer , 1992, Islam and the economic challenge, U.K, The Islamic foundation, p199

    (33) Harfiyah Abdel Haleem, 1988, Islam and the environment, London, Ta-Ha publishers, p9

    (34) . S.Sayyid, Bobby , op cit, p1

    (35) Haynes, Jeff , 1998, Religion in global politics, London, Longman, p139

    (36) cited by Marty, Martin E. & R.Scott Appleby, 1992, The fundamentalist challenge to modern world, Boston, Beacon Press, p134

    (37) http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/w/x/wxk116/antic/

    (38) Petras, J & H. Veltmeyer, op cit, p 59 25

    (39) Berger, Peter L, 1999, The desecularisation of the world, USA, Ethics & public policy centre, p2

    (40) Sahliyeh, Emile , 1990, Religious resurgence and politics in the contemporary world, USA, State university of New York Press, p5

    (41)http://www.dsp.org.au/apiaustralia/Boyle_paper2002.htm

    (42) http://www.hermetic.com/bey/millennium/religion.html 3