The summit of Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) at Dakar has adopted a charter of reform which will be subject to agreement later by the central powers of the organization because of their financial dominance. Meanwhile it is interesting to note how the 57 states perceived the issues confronting the Muslims of world. The Dakar Declaration passed on Thursday may not satisfy the common Muslim man in the street because his expectations remain essentially confrontationist and could even come to clash with the “passive” nature of the OIC.

The full text of new Charter is still to be made public but it was adopted to make changes in the OIC secretariat and speed up the process of decision-making in the organization. On the political side, apart from the platitudinous and ineffectual complaints about the Palestinian issue, the following “surprising” assertion was made: “We continue to strongly denounce all forms of extremism and dogmatism which are incompatible with Islam, a religion of moderation and peaceful coexistence”. The Declaration proposes “a major international gathering on Islamic-Christian dialogue involving governments among other players”.

There is a condemnation of terrorism — but not without indirectly permitting it in Palestine — followed by a pledge “to work harder to make sure that Islam’s true image is better projected the world over”. In his speech the Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono actually exemplified the confusion that prevails in the Muslim mind: he began with the assertion that Islam was being associated with violence and accepted that Muslim societies were subject to “protracted conflicts”, and then sprang on the gathering the conclusion that Muslims must fight against “Islamophobia” in the West.

There is a need to accept the phenomenon of extremism in Muslim societies. But any discussion of extremism and violence will immediately come to the conclusion that it is in fact a reaction to what is being done to the Muslims by “others”. Yet the main victim of this extremism is the Muslim population itself, pointing once again to the indigenous nature of extremist thinking. One has also to understand the repeated failure of inter-religious dialogue, given the fact that large sections of the Muslim clergy actually believe that Christianity is invalid by reason of the “changes” introduced in its sacred texts. A dialogue is possible only if we accept the faith of the other as a valid faith. Muslims also believe that Hindus and other non-middle eastern religions are false and its their divine mandated duty to eradicate them.

Then comes the phenomenon of Islamophobia. All Muslims are agreed that it exists in Western societies but they are not prepared to understand it as a “reaction” to the changing sociology of the expatriate Muslims against whom this “phobia” is directed. Because of the full citizenship granted to the expatriate Muslims in the West — as opposed to the Middle East where Muslim foreign workers have no rights — Muslims think they are exempt from the obligation of “integration” with local culture. Influenced by the Western concept of “multiculturalism”, they assume an aggressive identity ready to challenge the foreign policy of the host state. The fear this arouses in the West is not good for the future of the expatriate Muslim community. Islamophobia is reactive and will go down if the expatriate Muslim accepts a level of assimilation not incompatible with moderation.

The negative reaction of the Muslims to the OIC is uncalled for. Most of them want it to be a military organization, ready to go to war against states that persecute the Muslims. They want it to be like NATO while OIC has not been conceived as a military organization. It is not even a common market like the European Union or ASEAN. It is at best a forum of opinion with some financial strength which still has a long way to go. The new reform says that OIC must have a “solidarity fund” at the disposal of the organization to enable it to help member states troubled by human disasters. The last time the call was made for $10 billion, only $2 billion were collected, all from Saudi Arabia.

It has been proposed that OIC resolutions should be passed with a two-thirds majority of the members present, and not by unanimity as heretofore. Most of the anger felt at the level of the masses against the OIC has sprung from this conditionality. But one can hardly expect great developments to flow from the reform since the organization will remain unable to intervene in intra-Muslim conflicts, which means that in situations like the Muslim-kills-Muslims genocide in Sudan only the Western charities will be able to play any meaningful role. The OIC is sitting uncomfortably on top of a motley number of states not actually at peace with one another.

The greatest weakness of the OIC springs from the alienation of the Muslim masses from the states they live in. The rulers that come together at the summit feel uncertain about the people they rule. And what the Muslim masses want is often distorted by bigotry and irrationality. Of course they have sources of inspiration that lead them to this insane approach.