A great opinion piece.
Everyone in the West, from the TV pundits, liberals or neo-conservatives, to the general masses, always have the same comments, "Muslims are not doing enough against extremism in the Middle East."
As the piece correctly points out that Muslims in the Middle East can't even protest for their basic rights to, for instance, jobs, & the people in the West are asking them to protest against ISIS & Al Qaeda. After all, being a moron has no limits.
On top of that, as the piece correctly points out, if Muslims are being asked to speak out against extremism in Islam, then why aren't Christians, Jews, agnostics, & atheists are being asked to protest against Zionism & Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands. Many people consider Israel as an occupier but can't say a damn word against it. Heck, in many Western countries, saying anything against Israeli occupation is labelled as, "anti-Semitism," & it's illegal to be an anti-Semitic in North America (but it's ok to be a racist).
As I have blogged previously that if the world wants peace anywhere, & especially in the Middle East, the Western powers should stop interfering in internal matters of those countries. Muslims in those countries can, & would love to protest, but thanks to the armament supply from UK, US, China, Russia, Israel, Sweden, Germany, France etc. that the citizens & residents of those Middle Eastern countries are forcibly sent home or to prisons.
If the Western developed countries stop supporting the Middle Eastern countries or Central American countries or South American countries or SouthEast Asian countries or African countries today, by stopping their weapons sales, political analysts & envoys, & of course, spies from ever entering into these developing countries, & let these developing countries develop & learn by themselves, then we will have peace in this world at that moment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not a day passes without certain pundits sharing their newfound "insights" about Islam; "Islam at war", "Islam's war within", or "Islam's inherent violence", etc.
These headlines & their derivatives are neither new nor original, & despite being repeated countless times in the West, they remain fashionable. Partly because of what they say about the continued escalation in violence in the region, but more importantly for what they say about their manufacturers.
These can be divided into 2 opposing camps, but they have more in common than meets the eye.
The first camp claims "Islam is at war" & demands that the West respond with more of the same, war. It advocates deliberate, sustained & wide ranging use of force against Islamic radicals & their sponsors anywhere they might be.
Its proponents criticise the Obama administration's strategic restraint & condemn its withdrawal from Iraq & its retreat or redeployment in the rest of the region.
'ISIL is not Islamic'
They also question US President Barack Obama's judgement that ISIL "is not Islamic" & ridicule his administration's claim that the terrorists are the "enemies of Islam".
In their mind, Islamism is an ideology that preaches extremism & terrorism & must be confronted & eradicated by force. Some go as far as to claim that Islam as a religion spouts hate & breeds violence & therefore must be radically reformed and/or confronted head on.
The most vocal among these are the ultra Zionists & neo-conservatives. They reckon "cowardice & multiculturalism" is partially to blame for the leadership failure to confront Islam, & warn against the dangers of abandoning "moderate" allies & emboldening the Islamic radicals throughout the world.
They insist the West must emulate Israel's aggressive tactics & war strategies throughout the globe.
The liberal or realist camp argues that Islam is waging a war with itself, which the West cannot hope to win & therefore shouldn't get involved in, except when US national security is directly threatened.
When it comes to Islamism, its advocates reckon military force is not sufficient or adequate to fight an ideology; & that only Muslims can, & should, engage in their own battles militarily & otherwise. The West can only help them fight.
In the words of Washington Post columnist Jim Hoagland, the realists are right about this: The US & its NATO partners cannot "win" the war inside Islam.
This is ever more so when it comes to the cross-regional sectarian conflict between Shia Muslims & Sunnis. Whether Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, etc, the liberals warn it's short-sighted as it's dangerous to interfere militarily in what essentially is a civil war within Islam.
They argue the West must draw the right conclusions from its failures over the past dozen years & avoid overextending its military footprint in the greater Middle East region.
Where are the Muslims?
Liberals & especially liberal Zionists, who oppose direct interference, have criticised Muslims for shying away from getting directly involved against religious extremists.
"There is a cancer of extremism within Islam today," wrote Fareed Zakaria. "A small minority of Muslims celebrates violence & intolerance & harbours deeply reactionary attitudes towards women & minorities. While some confront these extremists, not enough do so, & the protests are not loud enough."
"Islam is in crisis, a religion at war with itself," argued Roger Cohen & added: "The West is a spectator to this internal conflict & a victim of it. Up to now, the reaction of Muslims to the horrors committed in the name of an ideology of hate & death drawn from a certain reading of Islamic texts has been pitiful."
His colleague, Thomas Friedman went further. Muslims need to organise "a million-person march against the jihadists across the Arab-Muslim world, organised by Arabs & Muslims for Arabs & Muslims, without anyone in the West asking for it".
I don't know where these Western liberals (who don't speak any of the regional languages) get the idea that Muslims do not speak out against extremists. If anything, Muslims are the harshest enemies, bravest fighters & worst victims of extremism.
Are they at least aware that Muslims cannot demonstrate in much of the Arab World?
On the other hand, if it's so easy to demonstrate in New York & Los Angeles, why aren't they calling on the Jewish majorities to demonstrate against Zionism & in favour of peace & a two-state solution.
That's not to say there are no radicals, extremists & fundamentalists like ISIL & al-Qaeda, but the real major problems facing the Arab today goes beyond religious texts.
Frustrating frustration
There's something terribly annoying about the repetitiveness & recklessness of those who invoke Islam with each & every issue confronting the greater Middle East region. Even more irritating is their attempt to repackage their arguments in an aura of originality.
But while doing my research, I drew solace from the fact that I am not alone in my frustration. As Rami Khouri put it: "We suffer enough stress & danger in the Arab region from political violence, ageing tyrants, foreign invasions, local criminal & militia groups, colonial settler expansions, & frayed, haemorrhaging socioeconomic systems that we do not need this added intellectual bludgeoning by the international battalions of perplexity & confusion who find comfort in old-fashioned wholesale racism & reductionism ['Islam is this, Islam is that'] that explains nothing other than their own bewilderment."
I wonder whether it's bewilderment or opportunism.
Remember, the Friedmans & the Zakarias of Western punditry, who supported the 2003 invasion of Iraq among other post 9/11 military adventures, are scapegoating Muslims for theirs & their government's follies.
They deflect Western geopolitical failures on Islam; failures & blunders that culminated in evermore antagonisms & divisions.
And they complain about how Muslims don't speak loud enough against the extremists, when Muslims are the foremost victims of extremism.
It's the context, dummy
It's rather cruel to ask Muslims to demonstrate against the recent killings in Paris, for example, when they can't even demonstrate against the mass murder in their own homelands. They can't even demonstrate for jobs & justice.
Moreover, why are Muslims asked to demonstrate against religious extremism while Christians, Jews, agnostics, atheists, & Muslims are not asked to demonstrate against Israeli occupation or speak against Western wars & global injustice?
There's no doubt that unlike the neo-conservatives, liberals' approach to the Muslim world tends to be more rational, less militarist & less racist, albeit with hypocritical twist of self-endowed surplus morality.
However, both camps look at the region through imperial lenses. Both evade responsibility for their role in the terrible state of affairs in the greater Middle East.
But after decades of colonial invasions, interventions, & occupations, neither camp should be surprised that Muslims have a long memory & deep distrust of Western motives when it comes to provoking war or invoking Islam.
Marwan Bishara is the senior political analyst at Al Jazeera.
Everyone in the West, from the TV pundits, liberals or neo-conservatives, to the general masses, always have the same comments, "Muslims are not doing enough against extremism in the Middle East."
As the piece correctly points out that Muslims in the Middle East can't even protest for their basic rights to, for instance, jobs, & the people in the West are asking them to protest against ISIS & Al Qaeda. After all, being a moron has no limits.
On top of that, as the piece correctly points out, if Muslims are being asked to speak out against extremism in Islam, then why aren't Christians, Jews, agnostics, & atheists are being asked to protest against Zionism & Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands. Many people consider Israel as an occupier but can't say a damn word against it. Heck, in many Western countries, saying anything against Israeli occupation is labelled as, "anti-Semitism," & it's illegal to be an anti-Semitic in North America (but it's ok to be a racist).
As I have blogged previously that if the world wants peace anywhere, & especially in the Middle East, the Western powers should stop interfering in internal matters of those countries. Muslims in those countries can, & would love to protest, but thanks to the armament supply from UK, US, China, Russia, Israel, Sweden, Germany, France etc. that the citizens & residents of those Middle Eastern countries are forcibly sent home or to prisons.
If the Western developed countries stop supporting the Middle Eastern countries or Central American countries or South American countries or SouthEast Asian countries or African countries today, by stopping their weapons sales, political analysts & envoys, & of course, spies from ever entering into these developing countries, & let these developing countries develop & learn by themselves, then we will have peace in this world at that moment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not a day passes without certain pundits sharing their newfound "insights" about Islam; "Islam at war", "Islam's war within", or "Islam's inherent violence", etc.
These headlines & their derivatives are neither new nor original, & despite being repeated countless times in the West, they remain fashionable. Partly because of what they say about the continued escalation in violence in the region, but more importantly for what they say about their manufacturers.
These can be divided into 2 opposing camps, but they have more in common than meets the eye.
The first camp claims "Islam is at war" & demands that the West respond with more of the same, war. It advocates deliberate, sustained & wide ranging use of force against Islamic radicals & their sponsors anywhere they might be.
Its proponents criticise the Obama administration's strategic restraint & condemn its withdrawal from Iraq & its retreat or redeployment in the rest of the region.
'ISIL is not Islamic'
They also question US President Barack Obama's judgement that ISIL "is not Islamic" & ridicule his administration's claim that the terrorists are the "enemies of Islam".
In their mind, Islamism is an ideology that preaches extremism & terrorism & must be confronted & eradicated by force. Some go as far as to claim that Islam as a religion spouts hate & breeds violence & therefore must be radically reformed and/or confronted head on.
The most vocal among these are the ultra Zionists & neo-conservatives. They reckon "cowardice & multiculturalism" is partially to blame for the leadership failure to confront Islam, & warn against the dangers of abandoning "moderate" allies & emboldening the Islamic radicals throughout the world.
They insist the West must emulate Israel's aggressive tactics & war strategies throughout the globe.
The liberal or realist camp argues that Islam is waging a war with itself, which the West cannot hope to win & therefore shouldn't get involved in, except when US national security is directly threatened.
When it comes to Islamism, its advocates reckon military force is not sufficient or adequate to fight an ideology; & that only Muslims can, & should, engage in their own battles militarily & otherwise. The West can only help them fight.
In the words of Washington Post columnist Jim Hoagland, the realists are right about this: The US & its NATO partners cannot "win" the war inside Islam.
This is ever more so when it comes to the cross-regional sectarian conflict between Shia Muslims & Sunnis. Whether Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, etc, the liberals warn it's short-sighted as it's dangerous to interfere militarily in what essentially is a civil war within Islam.
They argue the West must draw the right conclusions from its failures over the past dozen years & avoid overextending its military footprint in the greater Middle East region.
Where are the Muslims?
Liberals & especially liberal Zionists, who oppose direct interference, have criticised Muslims for shying away from getting directly involved against religious extremists.
"There is a cancer of extremism within Islam today," wrote Fareed Zakaria. "A small minority of Muslims celebrates violence & intolerance & harbours deeply reactionary attitudes towards women & minorities. While some confront these extremists, not enough do so, & the protests are not loud enough."
"Islam is in crisis, a religion at war with itself," argued Roger Cohen & added: "The West is a spectator to this internal conflict & a victim of it. Up to now, the reaction of Muslims to the horrors committed in the name of an ideology of hate & death drawn from a certain reading of Islamic texts has been pitiful."
His colleague, Thomas Friedman went further. Muslims need to organise "a million-person march against the jihadists across the Arab-Muslim world, organised by Arabs & Muslims for Arabs & Muslims, without anyone in the West asking for it".
I don't know where these Western liberals (who don't speak any of the regional languages) get the idea that Muslims do not speak out against extremists. If anything, Muslims are the harshest enemies, bravest fighters & worst victims of extremism.
Are they at least aware that Muslims cannot demonstrate in much of the Arab World?
On the other hand, if it's so easy to demonstrate in New York & Los Angeles, why aren't they calling on the Jewish majorities to demonstrate against Zionism & in favour of peace & a two-state solution.
That's not to say there are no radicals, extremists & fundamentalists like ISIL & al-Qaeda, but the real major problems facing the Arab today goes beyond religious texts.
Frustrating frustration
There's something terribly annoying about the repetitiveness & recklessness of those who invoke Islam with each & every issue confronting the greater Middle East region. Even more irritating is their attempt to repackage their arguments in an aura of originality.
But while doing my research, I drew solace from the fact that I am not alone in my frustration. As Rami Khouri put it: "We suffer enough stress & danger in the Arab region from political violence, ageing tyrants, foreign invasions, local criminal & militia groups, colonial settler expansions, & frayed, haemorrhaging socioeconomic systems that we do not need this added intellectual bludgeoning by the international battalions of perplexity & confusion who find comfort in old-fashioned wholesale racism & reductionism ['Islam is this, Islam is that'] that explains nothing other than their own bewilderment."
I wonder whether it's bewilderment or opportunism.
Remember, the Friedmans & the Zakarias of Western punditry, who supported the 2003 invasion of Iraq among other post 9/11 military adventures, are scapegoating Muslims for theirs & their government's follies.
They deflect Western geopolitical failures on Islam; failures & blunders that culminated in evermore antagonisms & divisions.
And they complain about how Muslims don't speak loud enough against the extremists, when Muslims are the foremost victims of extremism.
It's the context, dummy
It's rather cruel to ask Muslims to demonstrate against the recent killings in Paris, for example, when they can't even demonstrate against the mass murder in their own homelands. They can't even demonstrate for jobs & justice.
Moreover, why are Muslims asked to demonstrate against religious extremism while Christians, Jews, agnostics, atheists, & Muslims are not asked to demonstrate against Israeli occupation or speak against Western wars & global injustice?
There's no doubt that unlike the neo-conservatives, liberals' approach to the Muslim world tends to be more rational, less militarist & less racist, albeit with hypocritical twist of self-endowed surplus morality.
However, both camps look at the region through imperial lenses. Both evade responsibility for their role in the terrible state of affairs in the greater Middle East.
But after decades of colonial invasions, interventions, & occupations, neither camp should be surprised that Muslims have a long memory & deep distrust of Western motives when it comes to provoking war or invoking Islam.
Marwan Bishara is the senior political analyst at Al Jazeera.
No comments:
Post a Comment