“We Will STAY THE COURSE Come What May In Our WAR ON ISLAM Until We SUCCEED In Getting the Muslims Back To the Teachings of Islam. We Are Making Great PROGRESS in this Regard & Will Not Rest on Our Laurels Until We Can Proclaim to the World MISSION ACCOMPLISHED. I Would Be Failing In My Duty If I Do Not Thank the SICKularists, the MUTTerates, the FROGressives, the FOOLarists & the DEFORMists (SMUFFED) Within the Muslim Community For Their GREAT HELP in Assisting Us In Achieving This Our NOBLE MISSION.” – GWB
Fascism: International and Indian
DR JAVED JAMIL analyses the development and present manifestations of fascism in its various forms, and proposes the strategy which we should adopt to counter it.
Tuesday 5th Dec 2006
The term "fascism" was first used in Italy during the 1920s, and it referred to a type of union of right-wing concepts of authoritarian political controls, with "free" economic models. The term Neo-fascism is used to describe fascist movements after World War II. Fascism is mainly described as an ideology that uses power to impose its ideology, and opposes democracy and personal freedom.
Examined on the basis of this definition, the US has done everything that fascism stands for. It has used its overwhelming military power to subdue nations. Vietnam is not all lost in memory. Afghanistan and Iraq are still burning in the fire ignited by American governments. With the UN under its firm control, it wants to formalise and eternalise this control by "reforming" the UN. The successive US governments have throttled democracies in other parts of the world whenever any of those threatened Western domination. When Islamic Salvation Front (FIS) emerged victorious in Algeria, the party was not allowed to hold reins with the result that the country was plunged into civil war that claimed tens of thousands of lives. The US has been supporting authoritarian regimes in the Middle East and opposing Hamas and Iranian rulers, both of which took power after emerging victorious in the elections. It will not be wrong to say that Westernism led by the US has proved to be the biggest fascist manifestation of all times.
They blame Muslims for considering their religion to be the best, but are never tired of describing their own civilisation as the best. "The West is the greatest, richest, freest, best part of planet Earth, the heart of science and all knowledge, the best hope for mankind," roars a web-site, sounding the caveat, "Anyone who seeks its destruction should be destroyed themselves."
First of all, it demonised Communism and did not sit idle till it overpowered it. Once communism lost its place as a rival to America’s imperialism and capitalism, the West focused all its attention to destroy whatever Islam stands for. And when Western designs started causing reactions, it wasted no opportunity to describe Islamists as neo-fascists. It found in al-Qaeda a bete noir, which can be used as an alibi to impose its own puppet governments in the Middle East; this would later consolidate the American interests in the Muslim world. It presented al-Qaeda as savage barbarians, challenged the world to be "either with us or against us", and threatened everyone not on its side with dire consequences. What is this if not fascism of the worst kind?
The so-called International terrorism – anything that involves America becomes "International" – perpetrated by al-Qaeda has killed less than 5000 people. The war against this terrorism – either directly by the US attacks or as a result of the attacks by the "insurgents" fighting the American invaders in Iraq, has killed more than one hundred thousand of innocent Muslims. But for America, only their own people are innocents; their hearts bleed at every single American killed, but their eyes do not shed a drop of tear for thousands of Muslim innocents who lost lives just because a Super Power wanted to dominate their country. Thanks to the hate campaign by the media and some politicians, a large number of Americans and Europeans seem to hate Muslims with the cores of their hearts. Such is the venom that flows down their veins that when some Muslim terrorists are involved in a bomb blast, they would shout, "Look, Muslims are murdering innocents," and when innocent Muslims get killed, they would mock at them, "all of them deserve to be killed."
Muslims have faced sustained hostilities at the hands of their opponents; they have been killed in much greater numbers than those killed by the so-called Muslim terrorists. Loss of political dominance due to recurrent political and military onslaughts of European countries in the 18th and 19th centuries followed by the recurrent persecution by Russians, Americans and Israelis have turned Muslims all over the world sour. Till the late1970s, they had been only on the receiving end. Israel backed by America had snatched Muslim lands; Russia had occupied Afghanistan and the US-backed dictators had been ruling most of the countries of the Arab world. In the twentieth century, ideologically too, Islam was facing a stiff challenge from both the West and the East. Muslim intellectuals were becoming increasingly influenced either by Westernism or by Socialism.
There was hardly any place for religion in a world dominated by the two blocs. But Islam has an inherent capability to make a comeback even from the worst of situations. Revivalist movements had already begun at the ideological level in several countries. This was particularly evident in Egypt where Ikhwanul Muslimun was busy bringing Islam back to the forefront in human lives. In Indian subcontinent, two major movements turned the tide. Tablighi Jamaat attracted both the masses as well as some elements of the educated class. But its aim has been limited to reforming individuals. It started making efforts to change the human psychology by endeavouring to inculcate love for God, Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and his Companions. This love conjoined with the fear of the Hereafter led to a decreased attachment for this world in the minds of the masses. But Tabligh has virtually nothing to do with social, economic and political aspects of human life. They have no idea whatsoever of what has been boiling in the international arena.
Allama Iqbal and Maulana Syed Maudoodi challenged the Western ideas through their revolutionary writings, the former in the form of a haunting poetry and the later in the form of a powerful prose. Both of them attracted the intellectually inclined Muslims. They gave them the reason to believe that, notwithstanding the huge scientific and technological advancements of the Capitalist and Socialist blocs, Islam as an ideology is far superior. Maulana Maudoodi in particular was able to impart social and political colours to the fast swelling Islamic sentiments. But still the influences of Western and Socialist systems were strong in several countries. Iran, Egypt, Turkey and Pakistan had pro-capitalist tilts. Iraq, Syria, Libya and some other countries had strong leftist leanings. In most of the countries, the Western social and moral values were being aggressively promoted. Masses had started feeling perturbed by the new developments.
The continued support for Israel had been generating hatred for Americans. Developments took fast turns towards the end of the 1970s. These began to unfold with the success of Islamic Revolution in Iran under the leadership of Ayatollah Khomeini who overthrew Raza Shah Pahalvi. Against the wishes of the people of Iran, he was given an asylum in Egypt at the behest of the US. This infuriated the students in Iran who took 50 Americans as hostages. The US could not secure the release of the hostages in the face of the religious fervour demonstrated by Iranians. Ayatollah Khomeini’s movement had far reaching effects. He was the first Islamic cleric, after the initial period of "Rightly Guided Caliphate" (Khilafat-e-rashida), who could combine his views with actions in the field. This energised Muslim masses all over the world. Till this time, Muslims had been on the receiving end for centuries. Their countries had been occupied, their faith was ridiculed and every attempt was being made to divide them on various lines.
Now the time had taken a new turn. Muslims had now started responding vehemently to the designs of the Western and Socialist blocs. Russia was forced to leave Afghanistan as the result of the huge sacrifices of Mujahidin. Hizbullah Movement influenced and guided by Ayatollah Khomeini, gathered momentum in Lebanon, which Israel and the US were using for their strategic purposes in the region. Faced with daring attacks by the fighters of Hizbullah, American forces had to pull out from the vicinity of Beirut. Soon Israeli forces had to leave in the face of stiff resistance. The success of Islamic revolution in Iran had engendered a visible unease in the Western capitals. America in particular felt offended. It could not tolerate the consolidation of the revolution and its export to other parts of the Muslim world, and signalled Saddam Hussein of Iraq to invade Iran. Ever ambitious, Hussein obliged the US with a swift advance towards Tehran. The initial successes of Iraqi army caused jubilation in the US. They had started calculating that the fall of Tehran was imminent.
But their hopes were belied. What happened instead was the rise of Iranian nation against the invaders, which ultimately forced Iraqis to retreat. The war continued for several years. The defeat of Russia in Afghanistan and the failures of the US in Lebanon and Iran had rekindled the hearts and spirits of Islamic revolutionaries in many Muslim countries. With the downfall of Soviet Union, the US and its allies had shifted all their attention to the new threat. Islamic resurgence had been gaining ground in many Muslim countries. Malaysia had witnessed the emergence of an enlightened Islamist in the form of Mahathir Mohamad who slyly combined the Islamic zeal with the modern technology, which within two decades would see the emergence of a big economic power in the region. Life in Indonesia had started showing a visible influence of Islam. Pakistan was being Islamised by Zia ul Haq who at the same time kept close ties with the US. The expulsion of Russian forces from Afghanistan had paved the way for an Islamic rule there. The US did everything in its power to stall Islam from rising as a dominant force.
When Islamic groups emerged victorious in Algerian elections, the US did not allow the democracy to function and beckoned to the army to take over. Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait gifted the biggest opportunity to the US to strengthen its hold in the area. It amassed a huge coalition under its leadership and invaded Iraq, forcing Saddam Hussein to pull out of Kuwait. For the first time, the US forces established bases on the soil of Saudi Arabia, regarded as the Holy Land by Muslims. Though the US attacked Iraq for the stated purpose of liberating Kuwait, Muslim masses would not tolerate the US intervention in the affairs of Islamic countries.
The hatred for the US achieved new heights, which was not diluted by the American intervention in Bosnia where thousands of Muslims were brutally killed by the forces of Slobodan Milosovic. Most of Muslims thought that the US remained a silent spectator of the carnage of their fellow brothers, which continued for several years. The US intervened, they believed, only when its own strategic interests in Europe faced imminent threat from the Serb ruler. The US action in Bosnia could have still carried some weight had the US not continued to support Israel against Palestinians whose plight was intolerable for almost all the denizens of the Muslim world. The continued presence of the US forces in Saudi Arab was adding fuel to the fire.
The hatred for United States and Israel was sufficient enough to spawn such groups as would be ready to use whatever methods they had at their disposal to defeat the Western designs. The ideologues of these groups were convinced that most of the Arab states were mere stooges of the US government and would do precious little in the direction of securing legitimate rights for Palestinians, establishing Islamic systems in their own lands, eradicating social evils and working for the uplift of the masses. These combined to galvanise a strong enough motivation in their hearts and minds to fight Westernism being promoted by America and its stooges in the Muslim world. They thought it would be a fight for the cause of God. Weak as they were, without any formal army and sophisticated arsenal at their disposal, the only option left for them was to work clandestinely and attack the targets of significance. They knew that the forces they were confronting were too strong for them to defeat in a conventional war. The governments of their own countries would not support them if they used peaceful means of demonstration. This frustration converted some of them to "terrorists" .
Previously they had been indulging in relatively less threatening attacks that did not worry the West too much. But in 2001, they were able to prepare a master plan, muster courage and execute it with perfection. They chose what three of the chief symbols of American power were: White House, Pentagon and Twin Towers. The plan to hit White House failed, the attack on Pentagon was significant but without causing substantial loss; the twin onslaught by planes on the Twin Towers was big enough to change the course of the history to follow. Though no terrorist organisation claimed responsibility for these orchestrated attacks on American soil, the US administration was quick to point finger at the Al-Qaeda led by Osama Ben Laden, a man of Saudi origin who had close ties with the CIA in the Afghan resistance against Russia.
This was the "defining moment" for the US. It could have acted in many different ways. The delicateness of the position of the only Super Power of the world at that critical juncture was understandable. A Tiger had been challenged in its own den. It was natural for the tiger to be furious, ready to pounce, whoever it thought could have been behind the attacks. Yet, instead of fighting "terrorism" with the human wisdom, it chose to fight it with the instincts of a wild animal.
The US could have given a serious thought as to why there was a growing hatred in the Muslim world for its policies. It could have invited an international debate to discuss what was required to minimise the hatred. It could have taken Islamic Ulema and intellectuals into confidence. Instead it chose to threaten the whole world; the jaw was demonstrated and the teeth ground implying that anyone not ready to abide by the orders of the king would be crushed and engulfed.
With all its might, the US attacked Afghanistan, reduced its already dilapidated cities to ruins, killed thousands of innocents along with Taliban and Al-Qaeda fighters and replaced the Government of Mullah Omar with its puppet government. The Muslim world was furious; their fury however had an empty jaw with no teeth. Many Muslims had reconciled to the attacks by the US on Afghanistan. They felt it would perhaps silence the fury of the wounded tiger. The end of Afghanistan’s Taliban regime provided a golden opportunity again for the US to bury the hatchet and concentrate on improving the relationship with Muslim masses. Mind it, Muslim masses, not the self-imposed rulers. It had already dismantled the infrastructure of Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. It could have continued to hunt its elements while trying to befriend Muslims in general. But the tiger’s anger had not subsided.
It was ready to pounce upon another prey, which in its mind, and only in its mind, was a threat to it; none in the world could see what the tiger was trying to show to them. Without waiting for the UN inspectors to find Weapons of Mass Destruction, the US embarked upon a mission, which would prove to be nothing more than a mission of hatred. This would flare the flames of terrorism rather than extinguishing them. This would make ordinary Muslims believe that the US and its allies are bent upon destroying, with their innumerable weapons of mass destruction, their religion, their culture and their sovereignty. What followed was nothing but sheer madness. Iraq was invaded with the overwhelming might of the US and allied forces. Saddam Hussein was overthrown soon. But the real carnage followed after his exit. Even those who hated Saddam Hussein soon turned enemies of the allied forces. Insurgency emerged strongly and has continued even after two years of invasion. About one hundred thousand Iraqis have lost lives. American and British forces are facing an uphill task in controlling the insurgency; they are working on an exit strategy but nothing has worked so far.
The Iraq invasion has considerably annihilated the sympathy that had been generated all over the world for the US in the wake of 9/11. The hatred for the US policies has now become ubiquitous, especially in the Muslim world; even almost half of Americans are angry with their government. The Iraqis that were oppressed for long by Saddam Hussein have developed an equal aversion for Bush. They know that Saddam was bad, but they also have seen Americans proving worse. The average of innocent Iraqis killed per month in the Post Saddam era is surely much greater than those killed in the Saddam era. The graph of abhorrence in the Muslim community for the US has climbed sharply. In the end, it is the hatred that matters. No stockpiles of weapons, no threatening postures and no bombardments can generate love in the hearts of Muslims for the US and its allies. The more they will be bombed the more they will get determined to fight them. Only a handful of "terrorists" have brought disastrous consequences for the US. If this number multiplies, say 100 times, the results can be easily predictable.
It is no surprise that the Westernists are denigrating resistance by various groups of Muslims as fascism. Victor Davis Hanson says, "Make no apologies for the use of "Islamic fascism." It is the perfect nomenclature for the agenda of radical Islam, for a variety of historical and scholarly reasons. That such usage also causes extreme embarrassment to both the Islamists themselves and their leftist "anti-fascist" appeasers in the West is just too bad." He then thunders, "A War on Islamism is something that every Christian, Jew, atheist, Hindu or other infidel should support. A War on Islamism is something that every freedom-loving Muslim should support. Islamism – or any other philosophy that imposes religion by force – should have no place in our world. A War on Islamism is a no-brainer, like a War on Fascism. Every liberal and every leftist should support a War on Islamism."
The new nomenclature is primarily in response to two important developments. The one, "terrorism" is not condoned by majority of Muslims, though they may be sympathetic to the aims of terrorists. The other, "Islamic revolution in Iran" has been gaining in acceptance and popularity with every passing day. The rise of terrorism can be attributed to three major factors: American policies, the failure of official response by Muslim countries and the failure of Islamic Ulema to take the governments to task.
American Policies
American policies have shown glaring paradoxes:
First, while the West does not tire of espousing the cause of democracy, it has shown scant regard for the same when it does not suit its interests. The US continued to give Reza Shah Pahelvi of Iran, a monarch, the whole-hearted support against the wishes of the people of Iran; he in fact survived on this support. The rise of popular movement against him and the replacement of monarchy by Islamic democracy must have been a welcome change for the US if it was a real supporter of the rights of the people. Instead it chose not to let the Republic of Iran function smoothly. It has been busy putting all sorts of pressure on the elected government and organising rebellion against it. When an Islamic political party emerged victorious in Algeria, the US did not allow it to hold reins. The Army got in and the civil war that ensued consumed more than one hundred thousand lives. The "lovers" of humanity and democratic rights of the people kept smiling.
What on the earth can explain the souring of America’s relationships with important Muslim democratic countries like Malaysia and Iran and its backing of the monarchies? The US is fooling itself if it thinks its campaign of bringing democracies to the Islamic world will help its cause. Whatever the US plans for Iraq and Afghanistan, the governments there will ultimately land in the hands of Islamic revolutionaries. In Iraq it will happen sooner than the US can expect. The Muslim masses do not tolerate the US; the democratisation is therefore not going to help it. If it thinks it can manipulate political groups within these countries, this strategy is also not going to work.
Second, while the US wants every other country to honour the "international opinion", it hardly cares itself for what the world thinks about it. The overwhelming opinion of the world was against the invasion of Iraq; yet it chose a violent course and treaded it along with a handful of its followers. It disregarded the UN, which it thinks must always submit to its demands. This is a stark-naked reality that for the US the "International community" is nothing but America, and the "international opinion" means nothing but the opinion of the President of America. The "champions" of democracy would not tolerate democracy in the UN and would only want to keep the Stars and Stripes shining. The fate of the world should be decided not by the mutual consent of all the countries but by the will of the lone Super Power.
Third, while the US would not waste a minute in declaring the actions of terrorist organisations as barbaric, it would do everything, civil or barbaric, to quench its thirst of power. The US forces killed thousands – the estimate varying from a minimum of 15 to the maximum of 100 thousands – of innocent Iraqis. The responsibility of all the killings in Iraq after the invasion falls on the US. It made open attempts of the assassination of the President of a member of the UN, and later announced rewards on his and his men’s heads. Its soldiers tortured, molested, humiliated and sexually abused Iraqi prisoners; the worst inhuman treatment was reserved for the prisoners at the Guantanamo Bay. While it regards the death of innocents as "collateral damage", it is not going to accept that the loss of innocent lives in terrorist attacks may also be labelled as collateral damage.
Failure of Official Response by Muslim Countries
Terrorism would in all probabilities not have emerged had the governments in Muslim countries not been blindly pursuing the American line. If they had even allowed the masses to demonstrate peacefully, things would not have got that far. Terrorism is an act of frustration; when the governments do not act the way the masses want them to, some groups emerge from among them, which use the means available to them to try to stall the march of their detractors. Terrorism is worth condemning but less than the full-fledged wars by the strong nations against the weak. Terrorists must be condemned but in the same breath American government also must be condemned; for its heavy-handedness in dealing with other countries, its exploitative policies at the global level, its attempts to hijack all international institutions including the UN, its support for social evils, even their export for its own economic ends and for its unjust policies towards the genuine grievances of Muslims.
Failure of Ulema
Muslim masses want to see Ulema perform their religious duty without fear or bias. Ulema have failed to understand, at least put into practice, the real mission of Islam: bringing peace to the whole world. The fact is that they have hardly any idea of what is happening in the corridors of power at the global level; they have been a virtual failure in recognising the demands of the emerging world and planning an Islamic response to them. The world has become a haven for the forces of evils; the evils of all kinds are destroying the individual, family and social lives of the people. But Ulema are only busy eulogising their mentors — religious and political. This provides an opportunity to those to step in who have the will and courage to challenge the devil but not the following to pursue their goals in a peaceful manner. They have no option but to resort to the undesirable if not entirely prohibited means.
Iran-the Founder of Islamic Fascism?
The response of the Western analysts to the "terrorist" problem has not only been mostly puerile but also peevish. Most of them have used it as an alibi for venting their own hatred or misgivings about Islam and Muslims. They have demonstrated a partisan approach. It is no surprise that the Western analysts describe the Iranian Revolution in 1979 as the beginning of Islamic Fascism. Because it is with the success of Iranian Revolution that the West started feeling threatened by the resurgence of Islam. But can they answer some simple questions. Is the Islamic Republic of Iran more democratic or less than the monarchy (headed at that time by Reza Shah Pehalvi, the beloved boy of America) it replaced? Is the present-day- Iran more or less democratic than the Saudi, Egyptian and Kuwaiti regimes that the US so zealously supports?
Is Iran technologically, educationally and socially more backward or less than the Arab monarchies surviving on the American support systems? And finally, is the track record of Iran the nation less peaceful or more than that of the Western countries led by the US? The truth is that Iran has never invaded or occupied any country for hundreds of years and the only war it has fought in recent times was imposed on it by the then beloved boy of America, Saddam Hussein. Even Hizbullah, which is regarded as Iran’s ally, has only taken up arms to defend its people. In contrast, the US, the UK and France have used their lethal weapons liberally to advance their own interests. France, UK and US have been responsible for killing millions in Algeria, Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine. And yet they regard Muslim resistance rather than their own policies as fascism.
Fascism in India
Indian Muslims have also been witnessing the impact of Hindutva fascists who are bent on attacking everything that Muslims stand for. But the Hindutva fascists led by RSS are vastly different from the International fascists of the West. The Western fascism is primarily an economically inspired phenomenon, which has its roots in economic fundamentalism. The West does not hate Muslims but their faith and their increasing love for the Islamic socio-economic and political system. The West does not fear the whole of Islam either. They do not resent the spiritual or individualistic Islam.
Spiritual Islam does not directly threaten the survival of the Western socio-economic system. It is the System of Islam that West fears, the system that campaigns against Alcohol, gambling and sexual licentiousness, which supports interest-free economy, economic parity and equality of all nations. The very evils, which Islam fiercely opposes, have become the backbone of the globalisation. If Islamic values were allowed to become ubiquitous, this would spell doom for the western hegemony. Their very existence will be under threat.
The westernists know that any rise in enthusiasm for Islamic system, which they witness in Islamically charged movements, would mean a death blow to their hold. They also know that it is only the charisma of Islam that can unite the whole Islamic world. If Muslims consolidate their power as one nation, the dream of globalisation will never come true. Hindutva fascist forces on the other hand are basically opposed to the Muslim community and not the basic values of Islam, which are similar, if not exactly the same, to Hinduism.
Even religious Hindus want India to remain free of western value system. But their grievances against Muslims are more historical and political. They have not been able to digest the historical reality of 800-year rule on India by Muslims and keep on highlighting the "atrocities" committed by Muslim rulers against Hindus in an effort to make it the rallying point for all Hindus. They think once Hindus unite, their political domination in the modern India will be secured.
The nature of Western and Hindutva fascism being different, both have to be tackled differently. While there is a need to wage a full-fledged ideological campaign against the very fundamentals of Westernism, there is a need to campaign for the common grounds that exist between the forces of Hindutva and Muslims. We must make concerted efforts to tell the world the real motives of the forces of Westernism and its highly damaging effect on individual, family and society. In order to do so, Muslims will have to differentiate between West and Westernism on one hand and between Christianity and Westernism on the other.
Muslims must ensure that their campaign is not directed against the geographical or colloquial West and the Western people but against the negative aspects of Westernism that seek to monopolise the world through commercialisation and glorification of evils. Muslims have to tackle Christianity very carefully. Christian activists have to be convinced that Westernism sees every religion including Christianity as a threat to its survival. They have to be convinced that the first target of the capitalists was Christianity itself. They have to be further told that there is nothing common between the ideologies of Westernism and Christianity, except that Westernism began in the Christian West. The founders and proponents of Westernism are not those who loved Christianity but those who ruthlessly campaigned against Church. The emergence of neo-conservatives as the leaders of Westernism is only a late phenomenon.
In sharp contrast, Hindutva lobbyists are to be convinced about the common socio-economic affinity with Muslims. We must discuss with them about the growing impact of Westernism on Indian society, and must stress the resurgence of Indian cultural system, which has a blend of Islam and Hinduism. We must convince them that if the evils like illicit sex, alcohol and gambling are to be uprooted, Hindus and Muslims must join hands. We have to take them into confidence about the necessity of Hindu-Muslim dialogue and the need of a common agenda for the benefit of the masses. Hindus and Muslims both regard family system as sacred. If family system is to be safeguarded against the onslaughts of uninhibited sex, Hindu and Muslim religious elements will have to bury their historical rivalries and differences. They must start a new chapter in the history of India, the chapter of close association, co-operation and mutual confidence.
[The writer is Chairman International Centre for Applied Islamics, Saharanpur, India]
AB Withheld62@yahoo. com "For to us will be their return; then it will be for us to call them to account." (Holy Quran 88:25-26)
No comments:
Post a Comment