Madinat al-Muslimeen Islamic Message Board
|Who says it's not a war on Islam?|
|10/09/01 at 07:16:21|
|Who says it's not a war on Islam?|
Abid Ullah Jan
It is painful to watch old news-reels of Adolf Hitler and Benito
making speeches and crowds cheering. Mussolini's posturing seems so
transparent that one wonders how adults could have taken him seriously.
Hitler, what comes across is crude, passionate intensity and the
his audiences, sharing his feelings, with minds turned off. What is
is knowing how many tens of millions of human beings lost their lives
because of these almost musical-comedy performances. The seemingly
stuff can have deep roots as well as deep consequences. Few things
more shallow than the reasons most people have for supporting Bush and
war on "terrorism" and accepting their claims that it is not a war on
To understand if it is a war on Islam, we need to honestly and
scan the horizon since 1990.
Apart from the massive air strikes, commando raids and a prolonged
war" against Islamic movements, the police repression, deportation,
censorship and death squads that we are certainly going to face are
certainly not planned after the September 11 attacks. The US "war on
is no more than translation to the physical level, of the systematic
approach that started with (1) introduction of the rancid notion of
fundamentalism," (2) classification of Islam; (3) equating
with extremism and then terrorism; (4) removal of governments, like Mr.
Erbakan in Turkey, for having affiliations with Islam (5) support of
governments' cracking down on "Islamic extremists" such as Egyptian and
Algerian regimes; (6) development of agendas for government's like
Musharraf; (6) initially supporting the Taliban and then demonising
show the world the failure of Islam. The coming physical horror is
execution of the judgments passed by the western intellectuals upon
the past decade or so.
Just have a look at how the ground has been prepared for the coming
war." Musharraf came to "moderate" religious schools and take Jihad
Quranic verses from school curricula in 2001. However, the Economist
"The Islamic Threat" way back in its March 13, 1993 edition whereby it
declared: "It is the mightiest power in the Levant...Governments
before it. Arabs everywhere turn to it for salvation from their various
miseries. This power is not Egypt, Iraq, or indeed any nation, but the
humble mosque." Mosques would probably be the next targets after
with madrassa. Similarly, since the establishment of Israel, no one had
talked about "fundamentalism," yet Yitzhak Rabin suddenly started
the world in December 1992, "to devote its attention to the greater
inherent in Islamic fundamentalism. [W]e stand on the line of fire
the danger of fundamentalist Islam."
Mr. Bush with a slip of tongue tells his mind in 2001 by describing the
recent missions in the lands of Islam as "crusade." Peter Rodman,
editor of the National Review, however, saw in 1992 that the West being
challenged from the outside by a "militant, atavistic force driven by a
hatred of all Western political thought, harking back to age-old
against Christendom....the rage against us is too great..." (May 11,
Charles Krauthammer summed up the expected resistance by the Islamic
civilisation to the hegemonic designs of the US in one word: "Global
Intifada," (Washington Post January 1, 1993). He tried to suggest that
world is now "facing a mood and a movement...a perhaps irrational but
historic reaction of an ancient rival against our Judaeo-Christian
our secular present, and the worldwide expansion of both." The New York
Times went one step ahead and confirmed on January 21st, 1996: "The Red
Menace Is Gone. But Here's Islam." The open war against it, however,
be delayed until a perfect excuse like the September 11 attacks.
Intellectuals like Samuel P. Huntington played a key role in making
enemy of choice. He declared: "Islam is the only civilisation which has
the survival of the West in doubt." Web page of the Montclair State
University in New Jersey reads: "The West today is losing irretrievably
former global hegemony and is increasingly challenged economically and
culturally by East Asian and Islamic civilisations." Irving Kristol,
on Foreign Relations, wrote in the Wall Street Journal, editorial
1996: "With the end of the Cold War, what we really need is an obvious
ideological and threatening enemy, one worthy of our mettle, one that
unite us in opposition."
Bernard Lewis In his influential essay, "The Roots of Muslim Rage,"
"Islamic fundamentalism has given an aim and a form to the otherwise
and formless resentment and anger of the Muslim masses" (Atlantic,
99). Islamic "fundamentalism," according to Amos Perlmutter (Insight in
News, February 15, 1993), is "a plague" which has infected the entire
Islamic world and whose goal is to topple secularist military regimes
Egypt, Syria and Algeria and replace them with [unacceptable] Islamic
Daily Express, ran an article "Islam Is a Creed of Cruelty" on January
1995, which concluded that the spectre of Islamic fundamentalism was
haunting Europe and the world power should enter into a holy alliance
exorcise this spectre. The underlying assumption has always been that
is primitive, underdeveloped, retrograde, at best stuck in the memory
of a medieval splendour out of which it could not disentangle itself
a radical transformation; and this could only be based on Western,
"rational", "progressive" values. The long proposed "holy alliance" is
A above mentioned examples show that during the past 11-12 years
efforts have been directed to relegated Islam from its holistic
encompassing all facets of human conduct and behaviour to a mere set or
rituals, something what the west has done to Christianity itself.
to Lt-Col Trinka of US Army, "[Muslims] must work to fashion the
into a modern blue print for change." In a similar vein, one of the CIA
experts counselled that those Muslims who do not believe that world of
is law, should be found and supported. "The Arab rulers," he thinks,
to create a new identity of [Muslim] seductively fusing Islam and the
This so-called expert added: "Though the Saudi rulers may be guilty of
authoritarian behaviour and consistent stupidity in foreign affairs,
are at least fervent hypocrites, and that [in] Middle East Affairs, a
fervent hypocrite is always safer than a fervent puritan." He had the
audacity to make such humiliating remark because there was truth in it.
These are in fact general policy guidelines that we see in operation
lifting of democracy related sanctions against Pakistan and visit of
British Prime Minister who could not bear an undemocratic government in
Pakistan at any cost.
Over the last decade the western propaganda successfully divided Muslim
"Moderates," "Liberals" and "Fundamentalists" for whom there is no
justification in Islam. There has been no definition offered even in
Western propaganda. Salman Rushdie, however, lists in his October 2,
in Washington Post what he believes fundamentalists are against:
"homosexuals, pluralism, secularism, short skirts, dancing, evolution
theory, sex." He believes such "fundamentalists are tyrants, not
Muslims...yes, even the short skirts and dancing -- are worth dying
further argues, "kissing in public places, bacon sandwiches,
fashion, movies, music, freedom of thought, beauty, love," should
"these will be our weapons." The moderates among us should decide for
themselves as to what kind of Islam allows kissing in public places,
sandwiches, homosexuality, etc.
Besides mass propaganda, efforts were underway to support Hosnie
like regimes for their crackdown on Islamic opposition and remove
like elected governments for exactly the same reasons for which the US
to support religious groups in China. With false propaganda, the
have been demonised to the extent that even majority of the Muslims who
never set a foot on the Afghan soil to verify the grand lies, speak in
anti-Taliban, CNNised language. The US has established that a country
never be ruled with Islamic principles. Now the war is only left to be
carried out by individual Muslim countries by collecting information on
citizens as to who is involved with the banned religious parties, who
extremist, how to arrest and try the fundamentalism and if necessary
them from the scene.
Apart from the above-mentioned factors, the US, UK recent moves are
an undeclared war on Islam because:
1. Jonathan Steele, Ewen MacAskill, Richard Norton-Taylor and
Ed Harriman reported on September 22, 2001 in the Guardian that
Afghanistan were planned before September 11. The US planned the
soon as it considered it's demonising the Taliban project as complete.
2. Islam is the only challenge to American hegemony with its
claims to be a complete code of life with panacea for ills in economic,
political, moral and spiritual systems, and thus only Islam can pose a
threat to the civilisation considered superior by the West.
3. The West reasons that the source of terrorism is not its
terrorism but Islamic teachings and history. Naturally, the real
against the teachings of Islam from the original sources at Madrassa.
Mustafa Kamal destroyed Islamic teachings 85 years ago in Turkey and
up the swamp. We however are expected to follow the suit sooner than
4. The US is planning to impose its brand of democracy or
autocracy - whichever may be suitable -- on Muslim countries by force.
US put forward many symbolic personalities over the years to undermine
roots of Islam. These advocates preach unconditional assimilation into,
support of, sympathy toward, and whole-hearted participation in the
and political system espoused by the US.
5. Transmissions of BBC and CNN testify to the fact that it is
a war on Islam. On their part they put forward unqualified individuals
groups as representatives of Islam who may be unethical, deviants, or
outright heretics from the religion with no subjective measures being
to ascertain the qualifications of such people. Rushdie's recent
the Washington Post is an excellent example. They present Islamic
antiquated, irrelevant, authoritarian, unsophisticated, and limited.
6. By making public statements like: Taliban are not the real
Muslims, the American leaders, like Karl Inderfurth, have long been
a nationalistic or ethnic view and approach to Islam, or more
creating a new religion that cannot truly be called Islam but rather
some outward aspects of it. It will certainly be one that would not
challenge to the US domination or offer anything that will make Islam
as a viable alternative to the US uni-polar world.
7. The evidence suggests that it is the US government that has
been playing a leading role in the media crusade against Islam. As
fall 1994, PBS aired a documentary by journalist Steve Emerson Titled
in America." Evidence within the programme suggests that Emerson has
to official government intelligence. Some clips appear to be from home
videos confiscated from Muslims in FBI sweeps. A decade of this kind of
programming has set the climate for a war on Islam.
The facts do not change with the denials of Bush and Balir. The
Islam lies in the fact that despite having far less military and
power, the western war-makers do not have the courage to declare it an
war on Islam. They would certainly fail as long as they want to cover
ulterior motives and undermine Islam under the guise of looking for
"infinite Justice." Ending terrorism through eradicating its root
not take more than a few months. However, defeating Islam may cost them
generations before finally realising that it was a wrong war.
Individual posts do not necessarily reflect the views of Jannah.org, Islam, or all Muslims. All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the poster and may not be used without consent of the author.The rest © Jannah.Org