The
consequences of denial
Abid Ullah Jan
The recent wave of
unprecedented anti-war protests could not stop bloodshed in
Iraq and
will never bear any fruit as long as we do not stop denying what the
US
administration has so explicitly declared — a war on
Islam.
Besides failure of global
protests, Muslims are facing grave consequences of this denial of reality. From
the moment some leading Americans identified Islam as a source of violence,
social responses of fear, denial, stigma and discrimination are haunting the
Muslims who happen to believe that the
US led
misnomer adventures are, in fact, battles of a wider and irresponsible religious
war.
Many Westerners have
wholeheartedly participated in anti war protests. But they reject the argument
that this is a war on Islam. Most importantly, they are not interested to know,
why majority of Muslims believe so.
Instead they insist only on having a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer from Muslims to the
question: Do you believe it is a war on Islam? Discrimination then follows if
the answer is ‘yes’ and spreads rapidly, fuelling anxiety and prejudice without
any attempt to know the why part of the argument.
I have tried it myself but let us
do it together and agree that this is not a war on Islam — a self-consoling
assumption — and hope this is not. However, do we have a better answer or
definition to the following questions other than ‘because it is a war on
Islam?’
- Why do influential figures as
Eliot Cohen of the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies and
Kenneth Adelman of the Defence Department advisory policy board, a former
Reagan administration official, criticize Bush for his efforts to assure
Muslims that his war is against terrorism, not against their religion?(1)
These influential policy-makers have yet to explain the meaning of
their “war against Islamic civilization.”
- Do critics of Bush, such
as Denial Pipes and Thomas Friedman, not believe that Islam is intolerant,
hostile to Western values, proselytizing, expansionist and violent? Do they
not prove that Islam itself is America's
enemy? What does their belief mean?
- What does the drawing
with Joseph Sobran’s January 2003 article mean in which threat of Islam is
depicted in the form of a burning fuse of star and crescent which is about to
detonate the globe? (2)
- Why the implicit argument
in almost all the American commentaries on international affairs is that Islam
was hostile to the West before Israel
came into existence, hence that the Israel-Palestine conflict has nothing to
do with Islam's crisis with the West?
- Why the evangelical
Protestant clergyman who was part of the Bush’s inauguration in 2001 asserts
that Islam is an “evil”? Jerry Falwell, a conservative Baptist, said in the
interview with CBS programme 60-Minutes that he had concluded that the prophet
of Islam "was violent man, a man of war."(3)
- Why do writings of
leading analysts treat Islamic civilisation — a cultural phenomena — like a
responsible political entity? Why do they identify members of Islamic
civilization not in terms of their actions but in terms of what they are and
what they believe — just as the Jews were collectively identified as
Germany's
enemies, deserving elimination?
- Why persons like Ralph Peters
are trying to make the world believe that “entire [Islamic] religious
civilization…must change if it is to survive economically and culturally”?(4)
Instead of blaming individuals, or a particular phenomenon, why are we force
by leading news papers, such as LA
Times to read: “Islam's outdated domination
theology” needs to be defeated to “give peace a chance”?(5)
Why so many others like Friedman love to worship Huntington’s rotten
theory and try to make others believe that an “understanding [of a ‘different
Islam’] is the necessary condition for preventing the brewing crisis between
Islam and the West from turning into a war of civilizations”?(6)
What is at the back of
their mind when they attempt to link “Violence and Islam” like Charles
Krauthammer, who praises Huntington and
declares: “There is no denying the fact… that ‘Islam has bloody borders.’"?(7)
This is how they fell into pernicious fallacy that civilizations, which are
cultural phenomenon, can be treated as if they were responsible political
entities. Does it not reduce Muslims identification to merely what they are
rather than what they do?
- What to do with Robert
Tracinski, who clearly states: “Politicians, the press, and academics have
rushed to declare that this is not a war between Islam and the West. Islam, we
have been told again and again, is really ‘a religion of peace.’ Perhaps the
reason we have to be told this so many times is because it so obviously
contradicts the facts”?(8)
Furthermore, Anthony T. Sulliva, an associate at the
Center for the Study of the Middle East and North
Africa,
admits: “There is the policy posture that suggests
Washington's
agreement with the notion that Islam is inherently a ‘fanatic’ religion. This
belief was recently given voice by former British Prime Minister Margaret
Thatcher, echoing earlier comments by American officials.”(9)
And Ignacio Ramonet declared in Le
Monde as early as 2001: “You enjoyed anti-communism. You're going to love
anti-Islamism.”(10) And the taste of it lies in the media pieces
constructed around the argument: “Are we at war with Islam? Most definitely not.
But, Islam is at war with us. In fact, Islam has been at war with the West… ever
since the days of Muhammad.”(11)
- Can we keep on assuming
that this is not a war on Islam when persons of authority such as Randall
Price, author of Unholy War, keep on telling their people: “In 2002 we ask the
question, ‘is the US waging
a war with Islam?’ If it isn’t, it should be”?(12)
- Where do the countless cases of
implicit value judgements lead us to whereby comparison of “Evil vs Good” is
made? For instance, in an interview on Cal Thomas radio November 2001,
Attorney General John Ashcroft said: "Islam is a religion in which God
requires you to send your son to die for him. Christianity is a faith where
God sent his Son to die for you."
- How can we suppose
otherwise when the American commentators clearly state that this is “the first
US
religious war.”(13) And that there
is no difference between differently labelled Muslim groups. In a seminar on
“the identity of our enemy,” Danial Pipes said: “Distinguishing between
‘mainstream Islamists and fringe ones is like making a distinction between
mainstream Nazis and fringe Nazis." As he put it, "They're all gunning for the
same totalitarian goals, and which methods they're using at this moment I
don't consider very important at all."(14)
One cannot look at the
above mentioned factors in isolation; they indicate a mode of thinking, a belief
system that is not only bigoted but deliberately evades the causes of the
world's problems and aims to provide cover for exploitative and hateful
US policies
towards Muslims.
It must go without saying
that anti-Islam propaganda has led to a social phenomenon which is as much
harmful as the economic sanctions, invasions, bombings and occupations. Across
the world the unjust treatment of Muslims in places such as
Iraq,
Palestine, etc has
shown itself capable of triggering responses of compassion, solidarity and
support, bringing out the best in Western people, their families and
communities. But the effects of the anti-Islam propaganda are also so obvious in
the form of stigma and invisible discrimination, as individuals considering it a
war on Islam have been rejected by their associates, their loved ones and their
communities in the West.
Unfortunately, authors of the war
are calling is a war on Islam, but its victims are stigmatised if they say so.
Stigma is used to marginalize, exclude and exercise power over Muslims who think
so. While the societal rejection of certain Islamic symbols and groups may
predate the recent conflict, the public demonization of Islam has, in many
cases, reinforced this stigma. By blaming certain individuals or groups, society
can excuse itself from the responsibility of caring for Muslims as a whole. This
is seen not only in the manner in which Muslims are often viewed as the source
of violence and brining extremism to the West, but also in how Muslims are
denied equal opportunity and access to the services and treatment they
need.
Country after country would
become victim of US
aggression and laws, rules and policies would further increase stigmatisation of
Muslims in non-Muslim countries with the continued denial that the
US is bent
upon defeating Islam. The worldwide wave of protest would bring not fruits until
it is recognised that the US
administration is engaged in an irresponsible religious
war.
Concluded
March 31, 2003
_______________________________
References
-
William Pfaff, Totalitarian Thinking, IHT,
Thursday, December 5, 2002.
-
-
-
Ralph Peters, Turn East From Mecca: Islam's
Future Will Be Decided on Its Frontiers, Washington Post, Sunday, December 1,
2002; Page B01.
-
Yossi Klein Halevi, “Islam's Outdated Domination Theology,”
Los Angeles Times, December 4, 2002.
-
Thomas L. Friedman, An Islamic Reformation, New York Times, December 04,
2002.
-
Charles Krauthammer, Violence and Islam,
Washington Post, Friday, December 6, 2002; Page
A45.
-
-
Anthony T. Sulliva, American policy and
Islam, Washington Times, March 18,
2002.
-
Ignacio Ramonet, “An enemy. At last,” Le Monde Diplomatique, October
2001
-
-
-
James O. Goldsborough, “Beginning a
modern religious war,” San Diego
Union-Tribune, March 3, 2003.
-
“Defining the enemy,” Editorial, Washington Times, July 2,
2002
