/* */

PDA

View Full Version : The Native Orientalists: The Muslims America Loves



MinAhlilHadeeth
05-12-2006, 09:09 AM
The Native Orientalists: The Muslims America Loves

By M. SHAHID ALAM
Being a Muslim today--in the middle of America's 'war against global terrorism'--carries some new hazards. But it is not without its bright side for a few Muslims who are eager to profit from this war.
Muslims need little tutoring in the hazards they now face. Many tens of thousands are already dead in wars imposed by the United States--on Iraq and Afghanistan. The death toll is expected to climb, perhaps steeply, as these wars are carried to Iran, Syria or Pakistan. Iranians also face the prospect--perhaps, imminent--of incineration in nuclear strikes.
Death or dislocation in wars are not the only hazards that confront Muslims. In principle, any Muslim can also become the object of 'extraordinary renditions.' No matter where they happen to be, they could be kidnapped by the CIA, hooded, and transported to secret offshore US prisons, or delivered into the hands of US-friendly regimes with expertise in the fine arts of interrogation. No one knows how many Muslims have suffered this cruel fate--or how many of them are still alive.
By comparison, Muslims who are captured or bought, and imprisoned in Guantanamo as 'enemy combatants,' are lucky. After facing down several legal challenges to these detentions, the US now brings these prisoners before military review boards. Although many of them have been cleared of any terrorist connections, it is quite touching that the US is now refusing to release them--it says--because they could be tortured by their own governments. The prisoners can now thank the US for offering sanctuary.
In fairness, America's 'war against global terrorism' has also created a few hard-to-resist opportunities. The chief beneficiaries of the new US posture are the Muslim rulers eager to get the US more firmly behind the wars they have been waging against their own people. They are happy to torture Muslims 'rendered' to them by the CIA, and, periodically, they capture their own 'terrorists' and put them on flights to Guantanamo.
The 'war against global terrorism' is also a war of ideas. In order to defeat the 'terrorists' the US must win the hearts and minds of Muslims. This is where Muslims can help. The US needs a few 'good' Muslims to persuade the 'bad' ones to reform their religion, to learn to appreciate the inestimable benefits of Pax America and Pax Israelica.
In the heyday of the old colonialism, the white man did not need any help from the natives in putting down their religion and culture. Indeed, he preferred to do it himself. Then, the opinion of the natives carried little weight with the whites anyway. So why bother to recruit them to denounce their own people. As a result, Orientalists wrote countless tomes denigrating the cultures of the lesser breeds.
Today the West needs help in putting down the uppity natives--especially the Muslims. One reason for this is that with the death of the old colonialism, some natives have begun to talk for themselves. A few are even talking back at the Orientalists raising all sorts of uncomfortable questions. This hasn't been good: and something had to be done about it. In the 1970s the West began to patronize 'natives' who were deft at putting down their own people. Was the West losing its confidence?
The demand for 'native' Orientalists was strong. The pay for such turncoats was good too. Soon a whole crop of native Orientalists arrived on the scene. Perhaps, the most distinguished members of this coterie include Nirad Chaudhuri, V. S. Naipaul, Fouad Ajami and Salman Rushdi. They are some of the best loved natives in the West.
Then there came the 'war against global terrorism' creating an instant boom in the market for Orientalists of Muslim vintage. The West now demanded Muslims who would diagnose their own problems as the West wanted to see them--as the unavoidable failings of their religion and culture. The West now demanded Muslims who would range themselves against their own people--who would denounce the just struggles of their own people as moral aberrations, as symptoms of a sick society.
So far these boom conditions have not evoked a copious supply of Muslim Orientalists. Irshad Manji has made herself the most visible na-tive Orientalist by cravenly playing to Western and Zionist demands for demonizing Muslims and Palestinians. I can think of a few others, but they have little to recommend themselves other than their mediocrity. This must be a bit disappointing for those who had pinned their hopes on using Muslim defectors to win the battle for Muslim hearts and minds.
There are some indications that this disappointment is turning to desperation. On March 11 the New York Times published a front page story on Dr. Wafa Sultan, "a largely unknown Syrian-American psychiatrist, nursing a deep anger and despair about her fellow Muslims." Deep anger and despair at fellow Muslims? Are these the new qualifications for Muslims to gain visibility in America's most prestigious newspaper?
If the only Muslims that the United States can recruit in its battle for ideas are at best mediocrities or worse--nobodies--what chance is there that it can win the battle for Muslim hearts and minds? The short answer is: very little. Muslims are not helpless children. You cannot molest them and then expect to mollify them with trifles and protestations of pure intentions. That may have worked for a while. It will not work for ever.
Muslims are too large and too dense a mass to be moved by wars. Military might could not break the spirit of Palestinians, Afghans, Bosnians, Chechens, Lebanese, Moros and Iraqis. What chance is there that wars will be more effective if applied against larger masses of Muslims?
The United States cannot expect to change Muslims unless it first thinks seriously about changing its policies towards Muslims. Americans must stop deluding themselves. Muslims do not hate their freedom: they only want that freedom for themselves. The United States and Israel seek to build their power over a mass of prostrate Muslim bodies. Stop doing that and then you will have a chance to win Muslim hearts and minds.
M. Shahid Alam is professor economics at a university in Boston. He may be reached at alqalam02760@yahoo.com.

SOURCE: Counterpunch.org
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Bittersteel
05-12-2006, 09:26 AM
read it in the newspaper.
and Muminah your statment that
The weapon of truth has more effect than a fully loaded AK-47!
is wrong!
Reply

MinAhlilHadeeth
05-12-2006, 09:28 AM
Why is that?
:w:
Reply

Syed Nizam
05-12-2006, 11:44 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by ~Mu'MiNaH~
........ Stop doing that and then you will have a chance to win Muslim hearts and minds.
Hmm, i like that:happy:
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
HeiGou
05-12-2006, 04:47 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by ~Mu'MiNaH~
The Native Orientalists: The Muslims America Loves

By M. SHAHID ALAM
Being a Muslim today--in the middle of America's 'war against global terrorism'--carries some new hazards. But it is not without its bright side for a few Muslims who are eager to profit from this war.
What a nice way to start off a vicious little article - in what sense are any of the people named below "eager to profit from this war"? Do you think that perhaps she means those Danish Imams, or Osama Bin Laden or Zarqawi who have all made not only money but also, if I can so describe it, "social capital" out of this war?

Muslims need little tutoring in the hazards they now face. Many tens of thousands are already dead in wars imposed by the United States--on Iraq and Afghanistan.
Really? The US imposed a war on Afghanistan? Forced them to shelter OBL, forced them to support his attack on the US, forced them to refuse to hand him over?

In principle, any Muslim can also become the object of 'extraordinary renditions.'
In principle and person can become the object of renditions. And always could. As long as they are not Americans, or Canadians as it turns out.

No matter where they happen to be, they could be kidnapped by the CIA, hooded, and transported to secret offshore US prisons, or delivered into the hands of US-friendly regimes with expertise in the fine arts of interrogation. No one knows how many Muslims have suffered this cruel fate--or how many of them are still alive.
Or they could, no matter where they happen to be, kidnapped by the Iranian security services, or the Moroccan, or the Pakistani, and transported to non-secret prisons. Oddly enough people fight extradition to other countries but very rarely to America.

The chief beneficiaries of the new US posture are the Muslim rulers eager to get the US more firmly behind the wars they have been waging against their own people. They are happy to torture Muslims 'rendered' to them by the CIA, and, periodically, they capture their own 'terrorists' and put them on flights to Guantanamo.
Indeed that is so.

The US needs a few 'good' Muslims to persuade the 'bad' ones to reform their religion, to learn to appreciate the inestimable benefits of Pax America and Pax Israelica.
Actually they need more Muslims to persuade the bad ones not to kill innocent women and children. But then we all do don't we?

In the heyday of the old colonialism, the white man did not need any help from the natives in putting down their religion and culture. Indeed, he preferred to do it himself. Then, the opinion of the natives carried little weight with the whites anyway. So why bother to recruit them to denounce their own people. As a result, Orientalists wrote countless tomes denigrating the cultures of the lesser breeds.
And yet they also wrote tomes extolling Muslim culture - the whole debate about Spain is not a Muslim-Christian debate, but a Orientalist-Christian debate which Muslims have borrowed wholesale - Muslims rarely talk about the benefits of tolerance after all.

Today the West needs help in putting down the uppity natives--especially the Muslims.
In what sense can this paranoid garbage be called anything other than paranoid garbage? Besides which who denies that there are problems in the Muslim world? This writer has just described how brutal Muslim regimes are. Is that Orientalism or just common sense?

The demand for 'native' Orientalists was strong. The pay for such turncoats was good too.
Where is the evidence for this nonsense? What demand? The secret cabal of inter-galatic shape-changing blood-sucking reptillian humanoids demanded 'native' Orientalists did they?

Soon a whole crop of native Orientalists arrived on the scene. Perhaps, the most distinguished members of this coterie include Nirad Chaudhuri, V. S. Naipaul, Fouad Ajami and Salman Rushdi. They are some of the best loved natives in the West.
In what sense can these people be described as "Orientalists"? Chaudhuri does not write on Islam or the "East". Nor does Naipaul much. Rushdie made a career out of viciously attacking the West before he applied those same skills to Islam. And he is not an expert on Islam anyway. Nor have they been well rewarded. Chaudhuri lived in obscurity, poverty and retirement in the UK. Naipaul won respect for his novels and works on Africa, not on Islam.

Then there came the 'war against global terrorism' creating an instant boom in the market for Orientalists of Muslim vintage.
Neither Chaudhuri or Naipaul is a Muslim - this looks like a cheap attack on two men the author does not like.

So far these boom conditions have not evoked a copious supply of Muslim Orientalists. Irshad Manji has made herself the most visible na-tive Orientalist by cravenly playing to Western and Zionist demands for demonizing Muslims and Palestinians.
In what sense can Manji be described as an Orientalist?

On March 11 the New York Times published a front page story on Dr. Wafa Sultan, "a largely unknown Syrian-American psychiatrist, nursing a deep anger and despair about her fellow Muslims." Deep anger and despair at fellow Muslims? Are these the new qualifications for Muslims to gain visibility in America's most prestigious newspaper?
If they have something to say I do not see why not. And Sultan, no matter what you think of her views on Islam, has something to say about the fate of modern Muslims. It is that that gets her a front page news story in the West, not her anger and despair. Besides which the author displays his double standards again - anger and despair is what he displays towards Muslim governments and those Muslims who dare to think something radically different such as Ajami and Rushdie. What is wrong with that?

If the only Muslims that the United States can recruit in its battle for ideas are at best mediocrities or worse--nobodies--what chance is there that it can win the battle for Muslim hearts and minds?
Indeed. A good thing that the Americans do not rely on mediocrities and nobodies. Unlike the author of this piece, everyone has heard of Rushdie (unfortunately), Ajami, Sultan and so on. No matter how stupid he thinks their views are, he should not deny the intelligence of, well, some of them.

The United States cannot expect to change Muslims unless it first thinks seriously about changing its policies towards Muslims.
America has no policies towards Muslims. It has policies towards Kuwaitis, Bosnians, Afghans, Iraqis and so on. Maybe that ought to change. Maybe not.

Americans must stop deluding themselves. Muslims do not hate their freedom: they only want that freedom for themselves.
Self-evidently they do hate freedom - ask a significant percentage of the people here about democracy. Sister Caliphate for instance, visibly and loudly hates the West for its freedoms.

Stop doing that and then you will have a chance to win Muslim hearts and minds.
What is the evidence for this? Americans work to free Kuwait. End the violence in Bosnia. Feed Somalis. Any gratitude or acknowledgement? Of course not.

What is of most concern about this is the misuse of Said's term Orientalist to mean, basically, anyone who disagrees with the "Party line". While Said may have used it with some precision and hence usefulness, this author simply turns it into a reason not to listen to anyone he does not want to and to not engage with their views. He sits in a stagnant pool of his own opinions and does not allow anything new to enter his mind. Truly this will be the death of the Muslim world. You do not have to like Naipaul's views but to do anything other than challenge them, think about them, argue over them and try to refute them leads to intellectual death.
Reply

MinAhlilHadeeth
05-14-2006, 12:52 PM
ROFL...... that was too funny to debate with. HeiGou mate, calm down.
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 17
    Last Post: 05-31-2022, 03:43 AM
  2. Replies: 19
    Last Post: 11-29-2008, 07:19 PM
  3. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-13-2008, 07:05 PM
  4. Replies: 27
    Last Post: 01-09-2007, 03:04 AM
  5. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 04-07-2006, 08:06 AM
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Holiday in the Maldives

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!