Part II: "The future of the Muslims"

My dear Muhammad Ali:
I'm sure you thought that I was going to write about the coming of Obama, but what is there to say when everyone and their aunt are holding forth with great verbiage and hyperbole? A leader is judged only and only by his results, not his rhetoric. Not even by his actions and deeds but to the results they lead to. If his actions result in improving the human condition, then he is a success; if not, he is a failure regardless of the beauty of his rhetoric, his panoply and fanfare or the megatonage of his bombs. It's too early. So lets get back to Part II of your grandfather Mr Altaf Gauhar's 36-year old article on the future of the Muslims. Next week will be the last, Part III. Then I might think of holding forth on Obama myself.
"The future of Muslims in the modern world cannot be considered in isolation. We have first to consider the future of man. The future of Muslims can be considered only as part of the general problem of the future of mankind on this planet. The secular civilisation of the West is facing a grave crisis and its entire institutional framework is in a state of collapse. It is against this perspective that one should consider the problem of Muslims in the world today.
"There are two ideas about Islam that have been widely propagated by some of the Orientalists and Western political thinkers. The first of these is that the history of the Muslims over the last 1,300 years presents a dismal spectacle of forceful subjugation of people, suppression of all freedoms, and an inherent inability to assimilate other cultures into a broad Islamic culture. The second is that Islam has no future in the modern world because it has failed to evolve any institution that could ensure its continuity. Even a system of succession for the smooth and peaceful transfer of power was never developed and the central authority always found it difficult to establish a fair and workable relationship with outlying territories. Islamic rule has been dictatorial and centralised. Most of the Islamic rulers succumbed to visions of personal glory and the restraints of shariah were used, with the help of obliging scholars, to maintain autocratic control. Some of the Muslim rulers openly flouted the shariah and subservient ulema were always available to justify their conduct in the name of the unity of the ummah. The case of Alauddin (1296-1316) is quoted [by M Mujeeb in Indian Muslims p 73] to show how Muslim rulers issued commands according to their own whims that were not always in conformity with the requirements of the shariah. "I do not know whether such commands are permitted or not by the shariah. I command what I consider to be of benefit to my country and what appears to me opportune under the circumstances. I do not know what God will do with me on the Day of Judgement." Mujeeb, to whom I owe this quotation, makes an important point when he says that some of the ulema identified the right of a Muslim ruler with his power, and obedience to a ruler was turned into almost a religious duty for the Muslims while the ruler was under no obligation to the people and could be deprived of authority only if he apostatised. 'This plunged orthodox Muslim thought into gross inconsistencies, wrecked its moral position and proved, both in India and elsewhere, disastrous to the Muslim community'. The failure of the Muslims to maintain the unity of the ummah, except for a brief period, is a favourite theme with Western historians. Not very long after the death of the Prophet [PBUH], 'was seen a curious spectacle of four different standards planted near Mecca, belonging respectively to four chiefs, each of whom was a pretender to the empire: the standard of Abdullah Bin Zubair, Caliph of Mecca; that of the Caliph of Damascus, Abdul Malik; that of Ali's son, Mohammed Bin-AI-Hanafaya, Mehdi of the Shiites; and that of the Kharajites, who were at that time under the command of Najda Bin Amir' - [Encyclopedia Britannica].