Abdus Salam was a brilliant physicist. So brilliant, in fact, that he won the Nobel Prize for physics in 1979. He was the first Muslim to do so. His fellow Pakistanis mostly ignored his accomplishment though, spurning him because he was an Ahmadiyya. Pakistan’s treatment of its first Nobel prize winner represents a disgusting display of intolerance that did irreparable harm to the nation.

His dream was to educate and train his fellow Muslims to improve his nation’s scientific abilities. After graduating from Cambridge, he returned to Pakistan to do exactly that, becoming the head of the mathematics department at the Punjab University. Unfortunately, his dream was cut short, as he was forced to flee the country he loved. Pakistan’s gifted son was chased away because his countrymen could not abide his unorthodox religious views. His government went so far as to declare that he was not even a Muslim.

Instead of being given the resources to build a research facility worthy of his intellect so that he could train the next generation of Pakistani scientists, he was forced to return to Europe, which took full advantage of his brilliance. His contributions to Europe’s scientific abilities led to breakthroughs in fields such as quantum electrodynamics, theoretical particle physics, and electroweak theory. The refusal of Pakistanis to follow the simple maxim of live and let live robbed the nation of a man who had the potential to single handedly catapult Pakistan’s scientific abilities into the 21^st century. 

Aside from highlighting a culture of bigotry, this episode shows exactly why the Muslim world has been so weak for so long. It is a vivid illustration of the type of short-sighted thinking that led to Europe’s colonial conquests, which were made possible because its massive technological advantages allowed it to build militaries Muslims simply could not match. The difference in their technological abilities finds its roots in the same mentality that ran Mr. Salam out of his native land.

Muslims have turned themselves from people who invented algebra into people that force their brightest into the arms of those that once violently oppressed them. Instead of giving themselves the opportunity to invent a new mathematical field, Pakistan’s leaders and people gave in to those among them who believe it is acceptable to use violence against those with differing religious views. Their inability to abide by the tenets of their own faith by ignoring its command that there can be no compulsion in religion chased away a patriot who was desperate to help his country.

Sadly, many Pakistanis have yet to learn from this tragic affair. The recent murder of a priest and lynching of a factory manager show that far too many still adhere to the sort of hateful ideology that forced Mr. Salam to flee. To make matters worse, Pakistan’s government still enacts and enforces laws based on these same principles.

Instead of using religion as a pretext to control or discriminate against others, Pakistanis must allow each other to live their lives as they see fit so that people can express themselves and follow their passions without fear. This is the only way to unleash people’s creative energy and this energy is the key to technological innovation and growth. It is impossible to limit artistic, personal, religious, or political expression and still create an environment that is conducive to technological development.

Such inclusive and tolerant attitudes will also be key to keeping Pakistan united and strong. Pakistan is so large and diverse that only a culture that emphasizes peaceful co-existence can ensure it remains a unified country. Those who wish to see Pakistan rise as a powerful nation must therefore embrace Islamic notions of tolerance and compassion.

As conflicts in Baluchistan and the Tribal Areas show, the alternative is perpetual violence and instability. The sad fact is that mankind’s history is a violent one. Those societies that do not develop the means to harmoniously co-exist and protect themselves will inevitably fall to conquest and violence.

In the modern era, a nation’s ability to protect itself depends on strong economic and technical abilities. An important facet of developing these abilities is fostering inclusivity and tolerance (as well as democratic forms of governance). Z.A. Bhutto infamously promised his countrymen would eat grass to ensure Pakistan had the means to protect itself. The tragic irony behind his dramatic proclamation is that it would have been completely unnecessary had Pakistanis simply embraced Abdus Salam as a fellow human being instead of obsessing over his religious views.

Pakistan was able to build its nuclear weapons by creating an extensive smuggling ring to provide the equipment it was unable to build on its own. But nuclear weapons are just one facet of national security. Over the next few decades, developments in AI software, space travel, and nanotechnology will decide which nations rank among the powerful and which will remain weak and vulnerable. Rather than allow a gifted genius to help it build a scientific foundation capable of developing this technology, Pakistan created the sort of toxic intellectual climate that will consign it to the ranks of the weak and vulnerable.

If Pakistan or the wider Muslim world ever wishes to rebuild itself and end the dominance of outsiders over the Islamic world it will need to create a culture that allows people like Abdus Salam to contribute to the full extent of their talents. Not just because it the right or moral thing to do (though it certainly is) but because it is the smart thing to do. It is no coincidence that the zenith of Islam’s power occurred when it was its most tolerant and accepting of dissent. Without these qualities, societies tear themselves apart from within making them far more likely to implode than achieve greatness. It is time for Muslims to aspire to be great once more. The best way to do that is to honor the legacy of Abdus Salam by making sure all Pakistanis can contribute to the nation’s development to the full extent of their talents regardless of their differences.

The author is a US Navy veteran, intellectual property attorney and creator of the blog www.mirrorsfortheprince.com where he discusses ways to modernize the Muslim world.

In 1985 Israeli bombers dropped empty fuel tanks on targets inside Saudi Arabia to show their displeasure with its purchase of long-range missiles from China. They wanted to showcase their ability to strike the Kingdom at will and emphasized their point by flying at a low altitude to show how little regard they had for Saudi air defenses[1]. This gesture was designed both to disrespect and warn the Saudis and vividly highlights the depths of Saudi Arabia’s military incompetence.

Saudi Arabia has since turned itself into one of the largest consumers of American weapons to improve its ability to protect itself. It now boasts the sixth largest military budget in the world and an array of sophisticated weapons as well as an army of mercenaries to keep them working. Its conflict with the Houthis indicates this massive spending has done little to improve its fighting abilities.  

Aside from their ballistic missiles and drones, the Houthis lack modern weaponry, an air force, or air defenses. Despite the severe disparity in resources and weapons and the fact that America has actively helped with logistical, intelligence, and targeting support, the Saudis have been unable to subdue their poorly equipped enemies.

The Kingdom’s continuing inability to field a competent fighting force presents an existential threat that it must take immediate steps to resolve. Machiavelli famously noted that rulers who cannot independently defend themselves will rarely maintain their power for very long[2]. That the Sauds have survived this long is a testament to their political acumen and unwavering American support. Unfortunately for them, America’s support is no longer guaranteed. As such, they must finally take concrete measures to ensure they can adequately protect their country.

Saudi Arabia presents an interesting case study in military power because the nation’s oil wealth means it does not lack for resources or weapons. Consequently, its poor capabilities are directly attributable to cultural and political factors. Robert Lacey provides some clues regarding the underlying causes of this weakness which stem from the methods the royal family uses to ensure its rule. For example, he explains that due to political considerations, the Ulama was given control over Saudi schools. Naturally, they favored Islamic oriented curriculum that emphasized rote memorization over improving the critical thinking skills of Saudi students[3]. Their control of Saudi schools is just one manifestation of their influence.

The ruling family’s alliance with the country’s conservative religious establishment has given them the power to violently ensure conformity with their strict interpretation of Islamic law. Saudi Ulama believe they have a responsibility to “command the good” and “forbid the bad.[4]” In pursuit of this highly questionable philosophy, they have trampled individual rights and modes of expression while creating a toxic intellectual climate that has affected Saudi society in countless ways. One of which is its ineffectiveness on the battlefield.

According to Ken Pollack’s book Armies of Sand, the poor performance of Saudi soldiers is directly tied to a culture that emphasizes obedience and conformity over individuality and independent thinking[5]. These dominant cultural values have prevented Saudi soldiers from learning to operate independently in the unstructured chaos of war, leading to incredibly poor tactical abilities. As a result, Saudi forces have proven incapable of learning how to conduct combined arms operations (these require different military assets like infantry, tanks, and artillery to work together) or properly execute strike missions against even undefended targets.

They have been given this power because it provides the Sauds the cover they need to suppress political dissent by helping to justify the draconian police state they have built. The suppression of religious and political discourse go hand in hand and serve the same purpose: to ensure the family’s rule.

The Saudi military’s command structure and organization also reflect the royal family’s political needs. Much like its civilian ministries, Saudi Arabia’s military is organized and designed to balance power between various branches of the family and the tribes that support it. It is organized and trained to ensure political control and obedience, not fight battles against external enemies. Its abysmal performance on the battlefield reflects these priorities.

Given these underlying issues, commonsense dictates that the Sauds must end the power of the Ulama over public policy and de-politicize the military by appointing officers based on merit rather than family or tribal affiliation. Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman has initiated reforms that are superficially consistent with the former goal while leaving the military’s politically motivated command structure intact. But none of his reforms address the political dynamics that forced his family to ally itself to the Ulama in the first place. Without serious political reforms, Saudi Arabia has no chance of developing adequate military power.

The Sauds need to take a page out of the British royal family’s playbook by creating a constitutional monarchy. This would allow the family to maintain an important, though diminished, role in the nation’s politics while protecting its incredible wealth. It is also the only way it will ever be able to create a military capable of protecting their nation since only a democratic government will be able to adequately de-politicize the military.

As I have mentioned elsewhere, the greatest enemies of commonsense are pride and greed. The Sauds are well-known for both qualities and, as a result, are more likely to laugh at this advice than follow it. They are far more likely to replace America by developing another neo-colonial alliance with China. Which means that instead of becoming one of the longest lasting monarchies in the world like their counterparts in Britain, they will go the way of the Almohads or Hafsids. They will become a footnote in history and join the long list of dynasties that have ruled various parts of the Muslim world only to fade into oblivion. The only real questions are when and what will follow.

---

[1] Lacey, Robert. Inside the Kingdom. Penguin Books. London. 2009. pgs. 111-12.

[2] Machiavelli, Niccolo, Trans by George Bull. The Prince. Penguin Books. London. 1961. Pgs. 20-26.

[3] Lacey at 50.

[4] Id. at 52.

[5] Pollack, Kenneth, Armies of Sand. Oxford University Press. New York. 2019. Pgs. 371-380; 394-405