Why Religion Does Not Work In Foreign Policy Making Because Religion Is A Non Scientific Truth

---

 



I just read an academic article titled "The Role of Islam in Foreign Policymaking – Part I" by one Emir Hadzikadunic a former diplomat from Bosnia Herzegovina. 
You can possibly source the full article at the IRF or Islamic Renaissance front. Here is only a part of the article. It is quite self explanatory. My comments are in blue.
Islam is not tangible and easily observable in foreign policy to be explored systematically. 
(OSTB : And whose fault is that, if it is a fault. If Islam is not tangible and observable in foreign policy and if that is NOT desirable then blame it on the practitioners, their belief systems, the society, its religious scholars etc. If it is a fault, it is your fault. Do read one).


This elusive role of Islam in broader foreign policy conduct needs further elaboration though.
First, Islam evolves in constant interaction with specific historic conditions. It is also in continuous interplay with diverse Muslim leaders. For example, Kemal Ataturk’s Turkey attempted to extradite Islam from the Turkish Republic and Turkish leadership from the Islamic world. However, in Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s Turkey, Islam appears a more important tool in foreign policymaking. 
(OSTB : Erdogan is an agent of the Ikhwan Muslimin or Muslim Brotherhood. Granted that all Muslims can debate or question each other's piety and adherence to the 'true Islam' etc.  So no point going there. 
But most certainly Erdogan is a politician and the Ikhwan Muslimin is also a political animal. So is Erdogan riding on his version of Islam to further his own political survival or  is he using politics to push for his version of Islam? 
But why not we go back in Islamic history - what was the foreign policy philosophy when the Ottoman Turks invaded Europe - usually without much provocation? They say 'war is foreign policy by other means'. So what was the Islamic element in the Ottoman Turks invading the European countries? If it was a good thing then should Turkey do it again? 
Likewise going back 1311 years when the Muslims captured 'Gibraltar' in 711 AD or  21 years later in 732 AD when they were stopped at Tours (in France) what was the "Islamic perspective" to invade foreign lands again without much (or any) provocation? And if that was a good thing then should it be repeated today?) 


Second, Islam as a religion has a different status in different Muslim states. Turkey had clearly declared a separation of politics from religion; Saudi Arabia had distinctly integrated royal power, religion, and the ruling family; Iran regards itself as an Islamic republic; Pakistan was founded in the name of Islam even though the state separates its political system from religion; Egypt, Syria, and Indonesia tacitly separate politics from religion without a clear declaration.[17] 
(OSTB : Putting it another way,  their religion has not been able to guide Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, Indonesia, Egypt, Syria to develop any coherence in foreign policies based on religious lines of thinking. An independent observer would not be faulted to deduce the fact that their religion does not have exceptional or unique foreign policy advise.)

Third, unlike Catholic Church, Islam is not attached to any transnational institution. For that reason, its impact on foreign policy may not be explored the way Catholic religion can. 
(OSTB: A church need not be trans-national to have influence. Why compare with the Catholic church? What about Protestant churches, Buddhist countries (Sri Lanka, Myanmar), Hindu kingdoms etc where religion does strongly influence government. Today the Russian Orthodox Church (which is not Catholic) has a significant influence on the Russian government and possibly on the policy towards Ukraine and western values.)
Fourth, historical interpretations vary as different Muslim states follow different madhhabs, faith practices, and traditions. In some cases, these interpretations are more dramatic. For example, Iran’s foreign policy occasionally focuses on traditionally inherent religious methods of Twelver Shı’ism, namely taqiyyah[18]. 
(OSTB: "different Muslim states follow different madhhabs, faith practices, and traditions". If they are all so different it again proves that there was none to begin with.
"taqiyyah, in Islam, the practice of concealing one’s belief and foregoing ordinary religious duties when under threat of death or injury. Derived from the Arabic word waqa (“to shield oneself”). English renderings such as “precautionary dissimulation” or “prudent fear” partly convey the term’s meaning .."
In other words taqiyyah is deceit, lying, dishonesty. This concept is NOT from the Quran. It is possibly a foreign policy tool of the Ayatollahs).

Fifth, Muslim diplomacies may differently value foreign policy ends for which their Islamic ethics are well suited. For example, while Saudi Arabia and Iran both define themselves as Islamic, the differences between their foreign policies could hardly be more dramatic.[19]
Sixth, Islamization in the Muslim world is also a complex interaction of attributing values, wishful thinking, true beliefs, devotional, and oppressive instruction.[20] As Berger suggested, “it may very well be the discourse of the true believer, but also of the shrewd politician.”

Seventh, Muslim countries that claim their foreign policies as being guided by Islam may have different motivations for their claim. On some occasions, it can be a particular understanding of Islam in a given situation (contextual). On others, Muslim states may also deploy Islam to legitimize any other course of action (instrumental).[21]
Eight, Muslim states vary widely in size, geography, ideology, economic output, military might or soft power. In practical terms, it makes it “difficult to find any two Muslim countries pursuing similar policies motivated by similar considerations of the faith in exclusion of other factors.”[22] Indeed, rather than making a general assessment, we ought to ask what country is picking what elements from the Islamic faith to pursue what foreign policy.
(OSTB: In short there is no consistency. They are all different. Meaning there was none to begin with. I have said this before - religion is better suited to make promises about the hereafter. That is the real strength of religion - the domain of the hereafter. 
Religion has continuously not been able to assist with worldly life. As evidenced by the points made by the writer above about the absence of a religious element in foreign policy making. "they differ, they vary, historical interpretations vary, different motivations, different madhhabs, contextual, instrumental "  and on and on. Not a single point of convergence or unity.

And the reason for this absence is because religion is based on non-scientific truth. Religion believes this and that to be true but it cannot provide hard evidence, or scientific truth to back up what it claims. Religion is based on faith, without the need for evidence.
Hence it fails quite badly to resolve situations where hard evidence, facts, science and logic are needed. In just about any wordly venture - like making foreign policies among nations.
Malaysia and Indonesia are both largely Islamic countries. When we had a dispute over the Sipadan Islands both countries took the dispute to the World Court - which is a highly secular and scientific instituion - to solve our dispute.  And indeed the dispute was resolved. 
Where was religion (I am shy and careful about saying "Islam" too easily)? Certainly we could not rely on any religious teachings to resolve a territorial dispute. 
The religious people really need more scientific pursuits. 

The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of MMKtT.
By Syed Akbar Ali 

---