|
 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 United States administration has so explicitly declared
- a war on Islam.
Besides
the 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 United
States 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?’
1. 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?(9)
These influential policy-makers have yet to explain the meaning
of their “war against Islamic civilization.”
2. Do critics of Bush, such as Daniel 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?
3. 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? (11)
4. 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?
5. Why does the evangelical
Protestant clergyman who was part of the Bush’s inauguration
in 2001 assert 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."(1)
6. 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?
7. 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”?(7) 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”?(14) 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”?(4)
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.’"?(6) 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?
8. 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”?(13) 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.”(12) 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.”(3)
9. 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 U.S. waging a war with Islam?’ If it isn’t, it should be”?(8)
10.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."
11.How can we suppose otherwise
when the American commentators clearly state that this is “the
first U.S. religious war.”(5) And that there is no
difference between differently labelled Muslim groups. In a
seminar on “the identity of our enemy,” Daniel 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."(2) 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 U.S. 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 U.S. aggression and laws, rules and policies would further
increase stigmatisation of Muslims in non-Muslim countries with
the continued denial that the U.S. is bent upon defeating Islam.
The worldwide wave of protest would bring not fruits until it is
recognised that the U.S administration is engaged in an irresponsible religious war.
Concluded
March 31, 2003
References
1. Associate Press,
(2002
) “Falwell Calls Muhammad a Terrorist,”
October 4, See http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/04/national/04FALW.html?ex=1034733929&ei=1&en=6f3ed8c443977c8b
2. Editorial,
Washington Times (2002) “Defining the Enemy,”,
July 2.
3. Farah, Joseph , "Are
We at War With Islam?", World Net Daily,
June 25, 2002
. see http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28074.
4. Friedman, Thomas
L. (2002) "An Islamic Reformation", New
York Times,
December 04.
5. Goldsborough,
James O. (2003) “Beginning a Modern Religious
War,” San Diego Union-Tribune,
March 3.
6. Krauthammer,
Charles (2002) "Violence and Islam",
Washington
Post,
Friday, December 6. Page A45.
7. Peters, Ralph
(2002) "Turn East From Mecca: Islam's Future Will Be
Decided on Its Frontiers", Washington Post, Sunday,
December 1, Page B01.
8. Price,
Randall "Are We at War With Islam?"
See http://www.worldofthebible.com/newslett.htm,
and http://www.albatrus.org/english/lien_from_oz/are_we_at_war_with_islam.htm
9. Pfaff, William
(2002) "Totalitarian Thinking", IHT,
Thursday, December 5.
10. Ramonet, Ignacio , (2001) “An Enemy. At Last,” Le
Monde Diplomatique, October.
11. Sobran, Joseph
(2003) "The Losing War", January , see http://www.sobran.com/losingwar.shtml
12. Sulliva, Anthony
T. ( 2002) "American Policy and Islam",
Washington Times,
March 18.
13. Tracinski,
Robert (2001) "A War Against Islam",
Ayan Rand Institute, see http://www.aynrand.org/medialink/columns/rt102901.shtml
14. Yossi Klein Halevi, (2002) “Islam's Outdated Domination
Theology,”
Los Angeles
Times,
December 4.
|
