In this part of the interview with Deepa Kumar, a lot of the points are discussed, especially, how Islamophobia was born out of papacy. How Jews, Christians, & other pagans converted to Islam not on the basis of swords but after seeing how technologically & socially progressive Muslim society in Spain was, & how Middle East is in flames, right now, because Islamic countries were always being divided, controlled, & used by the Western imperial powers of UK, France, & US for their own purposes.
Islamophobia is no different from any other racial, religious and ethnic prejudice. It is based on ignorance that passes for common sense. It may be common but Islamophobia makes no sense from any point of view.
The spreading of Islamophobic fear and hatred is part of the fraud of the War on Terror. The "terrorist threat to the homeland" is an unreasonable fear. It has resulted in an over reaction that has cost Americans trillions of dollars, killed millions of people, disabled millions more & made yet millions more homeless, widows, widowers & orphans. The current War on Terror, inflaming the whole Middle East, is just the latest example where the US is illegally funding terrorists. Other recent examples are Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan, DR Congo, Honduras and Rwanda just to name a few.
Islamic societies were never "barbaric hordes". They actually brought the culture to Europeans, who were actually living in Dark Ages. Europeans learned the administrative system of government, education (science, mathematics, arts), social justice etc. from Muslims & Islamic empire in the East (Ottoman empire) & the West (Spain & Portugal).
Now, the Islamophobia in the West comes from decades of subliminal messaging of the Western public through media (i.e. Hollywood). I am not discounting the fact here that Muslims, themselves, have also to blame for this Islamophobia. Muslims in general have walked right into the traps set by the Western government & media. Our public acts like how we are portrayed in the Western media. No doubt about it. But, the Western imperial powers have also always controlled our countries, through our own corrupt leaders, to get their hands on our resources.
Islamic countries are very rich in resources, from Morocco to Egypt, from Turkey to Pakistan, & from Maldives to Indonesia, & seeing this, Western empires have always divided our countries (Sykes-Picot treaty arbitrarily created so many little countries in Middle East after the defeat of Ottoman Empire), installed our leaders upon us (monarchy is not even allowed in Islam, & a whole family gets to rule & name a whole country after its own family name, i.e. Ibn Saud "owning" Saudi Arabia), & loot our countries from our own precious natural resources. These Western powers then become wealthy by using our resources, while keeping the corrupt leaders in place to keep these countries always in the developing mode. For instance, countries in the Middle East are spending billions upon billions in their purchasing of arms & ammunition from these same Western powers, & then using them on their own citizens or their own neighbours (Saudi Arabia killing thousands of Yemeni Muslims), instead of using those same dollars creating more jobs & more industries in their regions for millions of Muslims.
So, the Trudeaus, Trumps, Merkels, Mays, Macrons of the West happily sell their deadly weapons to Muslim leaders, while their public hates Muslims due to their media spreading Islamophobia, & all the while, their administrations broker deals to steal precious natural resources of Islamic & other non-Islamic, developing countries. That's the two-faced, hypocrite, stab-in-the-back developed Global West !!!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
PAUL JAY, SENIOR EDITOR, TRNN: So we're going to talk about the history of Islam.
DEEPA KUMAR, ASSOC. PROF. MEDIA STUDIES AND MIDEAST STUDIES, RUTGERS UNIV.: The first 300 to 400 years of contact with the Muslim empire, with the Muslim armies, isn't seen as a specific threat to European interests. Norman Daniel, who's the most influential scholar on this, calls this the age of ignorance, which is people in Europe really didn't know anything about the religion Islam, & they didn't see them as being a particularly important threat. They just saw them as yet another barbarian horde like the others that they had to deal with. Even though the Muslim armies are making incursions into Europe in the eighth century & so forth, they see them as just another threat that must be vanquished.
JAY: But if they see them as barbarian hordes, is that the beginnings of thinking of Islam as barbarian hordes? 'Cause that's part of the Islamophobia now; that's the vision.
KUMAR: Absolutely. But the sharp focus on Muslims as being barbaric & as being particularly demonic actually only happens in the 11th century in the context of the Crusades. And even then, the very first holy war wasn't a holy war. It was about the papacy wanting to establish spiritual & political control over a united Christian Europe. And what better way to do it than to inflame a holy war & to extend its influence into the Byzantine Empire, or Eastern Rome, right?
And so it's in that context that they start to commission studies of Islam in order to develop a propaganda. ...
... when they spread into the Persian Empire & into the Christian Byzantine Empire, very often, because of hundreds of years of conflicts between these two empires, people didn't put up a fight. Sometimes they just welcomed them in. And when the Muslim armies took over & established their rule, they gave people a choice: you convert to Islam or you practice your own religion & pay a tax.
JAY: ... Islam arises at a time of a great decline of the Persian Empire & a great decline of the Byzantine Empire. It's actually really filling a kind of void.
KUMAR: That's right. It's filling a void. And it comes in as a young, energized force that is able--that offers revitalization in the region. And this is, of course, why people would start to convert from Christianity to Islam and so on. And when the conversion--this happens over a course of 100, 200 years. And so when that starts to take place, that's when the European elite start to see Islam as an existential threat & they try to find ways to explain it. And so one of the explanations that's given is, oh, people are converting to Islam because Islam allows men to take four wives. And so it's because sexual indulgences are allowed; that's why they are converting. It's not about the religion. And the Prophet Muhammad is also seen as a cardinal of the Christian faith who tried to create his own branch, but because he couldn't come to power that way, created another religion.
JAY: Well, if it wasn't about having four wives, what was it about? Why was Islam so successful?
KUMAR: Well, because where they ruled, for the most part they ruled & brought prosperity. So if you look at the Iberian Peninsula, what's known as Al-Andalus, which is the name given to the 700 or 800 year rule of the Muslims in Portugal, in Spain, & so on, they brought massive development--technological development, development in medicine; the standard of living of people really greatly rose; & you had street lighting & all the rest of it. So that's why people, when they saw what these people could do, would convert.
JAY: And is it partly because Islam created a set of rules that gave more order to the society? What I've read both in decline of Persian & Byzantine empire, things had gotten very chaotic, like, in terms of there's almost no rule of law in some ways.
KUMAR: Yeah. Actually, the sharia law ... was developed, actually, in the context of trying to administer a huge empire. And you needed to have rules, you needed to figure out everything about how a society functions. And therefore it was invented, to actually create some order out of the chaos.
JAY: And when they talk about clash of civilizations & this being Europe versus the Islamic Empire & then the Ottoman Empire, it's not really about clash of civilizations so much. It's about clash of empires.
KUMAR: Absolutely right.
JAY: So it's about a class of economic interest.
KUMAR: That's right. It's completely about a clash of economic interests. It's about the leaders, the political leaders in Europe versus the political leaders in the Middle East & so forth duking it out for power.
And the fact of the matter is that these leaders were not always against each other as well, because even in the context of the Crusades, you see alliances being made between the Crusader kings & the Muslim kings & people betraying each other for political gain, for economic gain. So there's--the idea that somehow Muslims & Christians have always been at loggerheads with each other is simply not borne out.
JAY: ... actually when you're talking back in that period, you're comparing the Spanish Inquisition, which was burning nonbelievers at the stake, to the Ottomans, who actually were extremely tolerant, from my understanding. I was in Albania & got to know the place a little bit, & if you just called yourself a Muslim if anyone asked & you paid taxes, you could have any pagan practice you wanted. There was no enforcement of religious doctrine that mattered.
KUMAR: That's right. In fact, compared to the sort of climate of religious intolerance in Europe, right, at the end of the 15th century--Jews are expelled from Spain, as are the Muslims, & so on. And Jews actually traveled to live in the Ottoman Empire & ... they actually experience progress in the region because it was a far more tolerant attitude towards religious diversity than being burnt at the stake.
JAY: Yeah. And in Europe, Catholics & Protestants are slaughtering each other for hundreds of years.
KUMAR: Absolutely.
JAY: This is not great liberal values. So when does Islamophobia rear its head again in a serious way?
KUMAR: So the story that I tell in the book is that there isn't one long stream of hatred between East & West in the clash of civilizations. Even during the time of the Crusades, you found different attitudes among Christians & Jews who lived in Al-Andalus. And then you see a complete dying down of these attitudes around 13th, 14th century. The rise of nationalism creates different attitudes, different enemies, & so on. And, in fact, there's great admiration for the Ottomans, because the Ottomans, compared to Europe--& remember, Europe is just coming out of the Dark Ages, & they see this really advanced civilization, incredible political administrative system, & they want to be like them. They consider the Ottomans to be Europeans of a sort.
But what happens is that once the Ottomans are defeated, in Vienna, for instance, & once they start to go into decline economically & politically compared to Europe, where you see the rise of capitalism & technology & so on, that's when there is the reemergence of these ideas, because there's a sense in which Europeans are superior, & therefore the white man's burden is to go off & vanquish these barbaric people.
JAY: And start colonizing the areas that were part of the Ottoman Empire.
KUMAR: Exactly. And so Edward Said, whose book Orientalism really charts the process by which a systematic body of knowledge is created to justifying empire, to justify European colonialism--.
JAY: Yeah, you've got to dehumanize those who you will either colonize or enslave.
KUMAR: Absolutely.
JAY: ... In the First World War & in the Second World War, much of the Islamic countries do side with the enemies of the West.
KUMAR: Yes, that's true.
JAY: I mean, does this kind of more modern roots of Islamophobia connect with the politics of both wars?
KUMAR: With the politics? Well, I mean, the Ottoman Empire, of course, sides not with the Allies & gets defeated, & then that becomes the basis from which to divide up the Ottoman Empire & create these arbitrary countries with the Sykes-Picot treaty, the infamous Sykes-Picot treaty.
And so the entire map of the region is pretty much planned out by France & by Britain. And, of course, they establish the mandate system by which to control the particular territories that they have carved out.
JAY: And ... you've got Lawrence of Arabia, which was, like, the movie that sort of--most people's history of that period is because they saw Lawrence of Arabia.
KUMAR: Yes. And that's, of course, a different kind of white savior narrative, isn't it, is that the barbarians can't liberate themselves & you need the Lawrence of Arabias to go in and rescue them.
JAY: And everyone in that movie, I mean, all the Arabs in that movie, those characters keep reappearing. ... I think if you were to track all the various stereotype, you find every one in Lawrence of Arabia.
KUMAR: Absolutely. In fact, Hollywood actually inherits the cultural tropes that were developed in Europe in the 19th century in the context of colonialism, right? And so the kind of images that you see in the paintings of Gérôme or Delacroix and these incredible Orientalist painters, Hollywood develops that language so that, a Jack Shaheen refers to this as an "Ali Baba kit", which is you want to make a movie about the Middle East, you have a desert, you have a sheik or two, you have some camels & an oasis, & that's all you need to know. And he's quite right. Sex and the City 2 pretty much follows that stereotype down to the last letter.
JAY: And then, when you get to post-World War II, you have a reshaping of the Middle East, & it begins ... to a large extent on a boat on Great Bitter Lake. President Roosevelt meets with Ibn Saud, from the Saud family, & kind of make a deal.
KUMAR: Yes. ... if Britain & France were the key colonial powers in the Middle East & North Africa, the Second World War unshakes their control over the region, & now the U.S. must establish its hegemony.
And so this pact with Saudi Arabia really is about an oil pact. It's about how to ensure the smooth flow of oil from the Middle East to aid the reconstruction of Europe, the Marshall Plan & so forth, & how to prevent any challenge from occurring to that agenda ... essentially it's about how to have client dictators in the region, both who sit on top of oil, as well as those who rule countries through which oil must pass. And that's the context in which Mohammad Mosaddegh, of course, who wants to nationalize the oil in Iran, is overthrown by the CIA.
JAY: And Saudi Arabia & some of the other Arab countries, the deal is: you'll give us safe oil, we'll keep you in power, & you will--especially with the Sauds--you will spread the extreme forms of Wahabbism throughout the region. And there's this Eisenhower quote ... essentially: we'll use the Saudis to defeat Nasserism, nationalism, & socialism. And the consequences we're seeing today.
But what I think's interesting culturally, if you go back to Disney movies of the time, Arabs always have these great big noses, they have little whiskers coming out, & they look like fat, greedy Saudi monarchy. And then Aladdin is Western-looking, & whoever he's in love with looks Western-looking, ... speaks with an American accent. But the point that's never made is these fat, ugly-looking monarchy types are all in power because of American policy.
KUMAR: Absolutely right. In fact, the rhetoric that actually develops is this wonderful & great resource, oil, black gold, does not--the Arabs don't deserve it. It's our resource. They just happen to be sitting on it. And so these are fat, fetid, & corrupt people.
But at the same time, let us not have any kind of challenge to their rule, right? This is oil for security, which is not just about security against external threats, but security against internal threats. Any movement that would attempt to destabilize the rule of the monarchy, of the Saud family, the U.S., CIA in particular, played a part in destabilizing, as I said earlier, whether it was workers movements, whether it was a constitutional movement, or what have you.
And today we don't talk--we talk a lot about ISIS's beheading of the two American journalists ... , and of course that's horrible, but we don't talk about how there've been dozens of beheadings in Saudi Arabia since the start of this year. I mean, this is one of the most reactionary countries in the world, where a family, Saud, gets to name an entire nation after itself & considers the land its property.
JAY: As you trace the history of Islamophobia, especially in American culture, do you see a change? And if so, what would the establishment of the state of Israel & U.S., essentially, total support & one-sided support over the years for Israel--?
KUMAR: Yeah. Well, the U.S., the history of U.S. Islamophobia actually is sort of--the language of Orientalism gets borrowed by the U.S., not just in Hollywood, but even within the academy. So people like Bernard Lewis and a whole bunch of scholars who used to be in the U.K. would migrate over because they see the winds of power shifting across the Atlantic. And so they would set up their own schools and all the rest of it to produce this kind of knowledge right here.
But the particular context for how the U.S. would respond to the events of 9/11, whereby war is seen as the sort of legitimate response to a criminal act, right? I mean, there were people around 9/11 who said, okay, the people responsible for this should be taken to the World Court & brought to justice & all the rest of it, but by that point there had been four decades of work wherein an act of this sort automatically necessitated war as the legitimate response. And that's the work that was done in the cultural sphere in terms of Hollywood. It's the work that was done in the political sphere, particularly in the alliance between the neoconservatives in this country & the Likud Party in Israel. So there is that kind of collaboration, & on creating a terrorist threat & rationalizing that terrorist threat, from the PLO to the Islamists and so forth.
JAY: And when you try to unpack liberal Democrats who on many issues, even foreign-policy issues, can be liberal, like, even vote against giving Bush authorization to invade Iraq, the Progressive Caucus, the Black Caucus, and so on, but when it comes to Israel, like the recent Israeli attacks on Gaza, not a pipsqueak, like, out of anybody in Congress ... But it seems to me--and maybe--I don't think there's been enough conversation about the Democratic Party pro-Israel stance in relationship to Islamophobia, because it seems to me what's at the core of it is Israel is an outpost of civilization surrounded by barbarians, and that no matter what they do, they're doing ... horrible things in Gaza, but they're keeping out the Islamic hordes. And so ... Liberal Democrats will support anything Israel does.
KUMAR: Absolutely, and that's because there's an affinity, isn't there, between Israel, the colonial settler state, and the United States, a colonial settler state. Let's not forget that it's liberal Democrats who would actually bring into being the national security state that we have in the post-World War II era. And they very consciously use the language of manifest destiny, which is that it is the role of the Anglo-Saxons to create, in their vision, a state across from one ocean--or from one ocean to the other, and so forth. That is very much the language of the liberal Democrats. And so you can see the connections. Both are colonial settler states with a certain vision of who the chosen people are. And there's a long history in this country of pushing back against Native Americans and so forth.
JAY: And just one other point, which is, again, completely ahistorical. There are some monsters that use Islam to create and conduct their monstrosities. But in almost every case, they are the product of U.S. policy, and that part gets left off, and all you do is focus on the monstrosity. And the same with Hitler. I mean, could Hitler have come to power without all the support he got from Henry Ford and all the General Motors and on and on? It's questionable whether there would have been a Hitler if American policy couldn't help create that. So we never talk about that. We just focus on the monster, Hitler.
