/* */

PDA

View Full Version : The global resistance of Muslims to the ideological "West"



soul
09-04-2005, 11:29 AM
"Thus, it is more accurate to say that the West is an ideological construct that transcends physical boundaries," says Zafar Bangash in the article to follow.

I think that this ideological construct is the same thing as the Maseeh Dajjal (the fraudulent/fake Christ) that the Beloved Prophet and all other Prophets informed us about. Muhammad Asad thought in the same way as I do and labelled "the modern technological civilization" as the Dajjal himself/itself.

Anyway, that was something that I wanted to add. Read the article by Zafar Bangash now:

Taken from: http://www.muslimedia.com/reflect0905.htm

September 2005 / REFLECTIONS by Zafar Bangash

The trouble with the West

That there is a serious disconnect between Islam and the West is not in doubt; what is hotly contested is whose fault it is. Each side blames the other but, given that the Western media dominate almost all discourse, Islam and Muslims are blamed for everything that goes wrong in the world. There is little or no admission that much of the mayhem in the world is caused primarily by Western policies that affect others in profoundly negative ways.

Before proceeding further let us clarify what we mean by the West. It is neither a geographic entity nor has it to do merely with people. Many people living in North America and Europe, for instance, are as much victims of Western policies as people living in Africa and Asia. Similarly, most rulers in the Muslim world would come into the category of belonging to the West. Thus, it is more accurate to say that the West is an ideological construct that transcends physical boundaries. In this sense, the West is global, but only insofar as others submit to its policies and advance its interests. It neither wishes to share the material benefits it enjoys nor wants others to acquire the rights as it claims for itself.

Let us look at North America and Europe—two areas considered to be the core of the West. Both are profligate, have a long history of dominating other societies and peoples and have exploited their resources without regard to the devastation it causes. Even today, other peoples’ resources are plundered so that North America and Europe can maintain their rapacious lifestyles. Constituting a mere 25 percent of the world’s population, North Americans and Europeans consume more than 60 percent of its energy and food resources. At the same time, they also generate a disproportionate amount of pollution and cause massive environmental damage. The US alone accounts for nearly 20 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. All the while, it stubbornly refuses to accept any responsibility for, or to improve, its behaviour.

Beyond the extravagant consumption lies the even more serious question of the violence that is directed against others, especially Muslims. Most wars in the last two decades have been waged against Muslims; naturally more than 90 percent of all victims of war have been Muslims, yet there is hardly any mention that this might be a reason that Muslims feel so angry. “Theirs is an evil ideology”, thunders Tony Blair of Britain; US president George Bush has made even more ludicrous assertions, such as”they hate our freedoms”. That’s it; end of discussion. When State policies are based on such simplistic assertions, it is virtually impossible to have an informed dialogue. The West’s attitude is clear enough: might is right and since they claim to have military might, they can dictate to others how they must behave. When there is resistance to such aggression, it is branded as “terrorism”. Like zionist Israel, other Western states too claim the right to invade other countries and occupy their lands, as well as imposing pro-Western rulers and supporting repressive dictators while proclaiming democracy. Then the Western world is surprised that others do not find this acceptable.

The West’s behaviour is rooted in its history; the entire colonial period can be considered in the light of the same mindset. The Crusades were launched by the Church on the false pretext that Christians were being “persecuted” by “heathens” (meaning Muslims) in Palestine. The same assumptions guide today’s policies: others are uncivilized, and the West has the right to invade them. Talk of “evil ideology” springs from the same source, even if those uttering such words call themselves enlightened and secular. Likewise, the West can have nuclear weapons and even use them, but Muslims must not be permitted nuclear technology, even for peaceful purposes; the US has the right to invade Afghanistan because of 9/11, but others have no right to retaliate against US or Western aggression. The list goes on and on.

Every anti-colonial struggle was demonized in its time; Nelson Mandela was branded a terrorist and spent 27 years in prison. When the African National Congress called for sanctions against the apartheid regime, it was Margaret Thatcher, Britain’s so-called Iron Lady, who claimed that they do not work. So why did she urge Bush Senior to attack Iraq in 1991, and then to impose sanctions that were backed by Britain and France, leading to the deaths of some 1.5 million Iraqis? Iran has been subjected to a similar sanctions regime. The answer is that apartheid South Africa was ruled by their “white” cousins, carrying on the “white man’s burden”; Britain and the US did brisk business with white South Africa, including sending hundreds of thousands of citizens to prop up the regime. Today, a similar process is underway vis-à-vis the zionist occupiers of Palestine. Sanctions, military assaults and aggression are reserved mainly for Muslims.

Unless there is a significant shift in Western policies, especially toward Muslims, there is likely to be more anger and violence, no matter how many pacifist fatwas are elicited from pliant imams. The struggle for survival is part of human nature, indeed of all living creatures. Muslims can hardly be expected to behave differently.

[Zafar Bangash is Director of the Institute of Contemporary Islamic Thought (ICIT) in Toronto, Canada.]
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
soul
09-06-2005, 12:03 PM
Hey, I think this one such a good article. But it seems that it was viewed only six times. :omg:

Is this because this forum is not such an active one? :confused:
Reply

root
09-06-2005, 01:13 PM
Unless there is a significant shift in Western policies, especially toward Muslims, there is likely to be more anger and violence, no matter how many pacifist fatwas are elicited from pliant imams. The struggle for survival is part of human nature, indeed of all living creatures. Muslims can hardly be expected to behave differently.
I am really pleased with your post for it is an issue that I am just scratching upon it's surface. I am interested why you seem to suggest that mainstream historical aggrevations are Western in origin.

True, Christian Medieval times were bloody and one could argue that only such a Christian dominated west's brutality could halt the expansion of Islam at that time. However, when we look at the times after medeival times and move to the collapse and root causes of such a collapse of British & French colonial rule in the East. Some points I am intersted in are as follows:

Islam and Nazism.

My understanding of this is limited, however this said I recently watched a documentary that explored this area. There seems to be a link that suggests the East adopted an attitude towards Nazi Germany being "The enemy of my enemy is a friend". I am interested in exploring this area of history.

Islam & Communism

After the great war, the East seemed to gain an allience and considerable backing from the (Communist) USSR, and this "Marriage" between two ideals lead the East down a long difficult road that failed to free islam from oppression. So I am interested in this area.

Conclusion

Whilst I have no ultimate conclusion as yet, since I am intending to study this area in depth. I am intrigued that deliverence from the British and French with Nazi support did not end oppression but only made it worse. After the defeat of Nazi Germany and the imposing of a Jewish state by the UN, the East actively saught diplomatic and economic allie with the USSR which at that time was not considered a "Western" allie, but an uneasy truce pact. It suddenly occured to me that Afghanistan and Communist Russia gave birth to (I think) the Mujahadeen (splling may be wrong).

One of my first objectives is to define what "West" actually means in this context. Does the Islamic Eastern countries include the then communist Russia as a "Western" power as we percieve a western power today!

it was Margaret Thatcher, Britain’s so-called Iron Lady, who claimed that they do not work. So why did she urge Bush Senior to attack Iraq in 1991
She urged Bush not to attack Iraq, (your misleading). She urged Bush to eject Iraqi forces out of Kuwait, to go further. After her experience with the Argentinian invasion of the Falklands Island in the 80's she said the following to Bush.

"The only way to deal with a aggressor is to beat them, and beat them convincingly and let the world see you beat them convincingly". So in reality, she was not talking about the Iraqi people but the dictator of Iraq who not only went to war against Iran, but decided to invade Kuwait.
Reply

soul
09-06-2005, 05:43 PM
True, Christian Medieval times were bloody and one could argue that only such a Christian dominated west's brutality could halt the expansion of Islam at that time. However, when we look at the times after medeival times and move to the collapse and root causes of such a collapse of British & French colonial rule in the East.
This passage by yourself shows that you did not read the article. That's enough; thank you for not caring to read it. :p

The previous paragraph furthermore indicates that you didn't even realize that it was written not by myself, but by somebody else, namely Zafar Bangash.

As for the rest of your post:

The relations that you tried to establish between Islam and Nazism on the one hand and between Islam and communism on the other are also completely hollow.

The Afghan mujahideen were supported by the Americans, not the Soviets... Moreover, Muslim writers and individuals always bashed communism as the chief enemy of religion. Etc, etc.
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
root
09-06-2005, 08:56 PM
This passage by yourself shows that you did not read the article. That's enough; thank you for not caring to read it.
That was a little arrogant of you. For I have read it a couple of times,

The previous paragraph furthermore indicates that you didn't even realize that it was written not by myself, but by somebody else, namely Zafar Bangash.
Actually I did. But in essence the reply was not a direct reply to you but to the comments and thus, if you misunderstood me then that is my failing.

The relations that you tried to establish between Islam and Nazism on the one hand and between Islam and communism on the other are also completely hollow.
Again, perhaps I failed to make my point clear. I mean pro Nazi support prior and during WWII but communist support after the world war.

The Afghan mujahideen were supported by the Americans, not the Soviets... Moreover, Muslim writers and individuals always bashed communism as the chief enemy of religion. Etc, etc.
Sounds about right to me. At least I have made myself understandable, since I am of the opinion that the Islamic East (I am researching more on this) moved towards being Allied with Communist Russia rarther than the "West" which we would consider as being the west that the origianl writer is expressing. Why was the USSR in Afghanistan anyway and is it related to early political economical and financial (including Military) support from communist Russia.

So to me, the fact that the US being a member of NATO and Communist Russia being part of the "Warsaw Pact" it would make sense to me why the US were backing the Mujahadeen against in effect a communist power. However, the fact that the Mujahadeen seems to have become known or indeed formed (I do not know yet) to fight (at that time) Russian forces in Afgahanistan. My point remains valid.

From this I now have three questions I ned to answer:

1. Was communist Russia classed as a "Western Power" immediately after WWII.
2. What was Communist Russia doing in Afghanistan.
3. Why did the US opt to support the Mujahadeen.

If anyone can help in answering them please do so (With source material when applicable)

Regards

Root
Reply

minaz
09-06-2005, 09:50 PM
1. Nope it was a world power (was at Yalta conference along with UK and US), however straight after the conference the cold war begun, Churchill didn't trust Stalin, neither did Truman and other followed suit.

2. Don’t know exactly, but the threat of a Muslim state as it's neighbour wasn't in the commie's interests, they were loosing favour in their "states" (i.e. Poland and other Iron Curtain countries). Also we can't forget the strategic Afghan gas pipes: p

3. Lol "Reagenomic", Republican President Reagan wanted to destroy communism once and for all and he held an "iron fist". So humiliating the commies all over the world in central, south America, mid east (although they thought USSR was helping Syria etc) and Afghanistan

p.s. Islam is against Nazism and USSR, just that some anti American Muslims may come across hailing these 2 evils when they overcame the USA
Reply

soul
09-07-2005, 11:20 AM
But in essence the reply was not a direct reply to you but to the comments and thus, if you misunderstood me then that is my failing.
As you have thus admitted to diverting the thread off topic, we can forget all about what you said and read the original article.
Reply

minaz
09-07-2005, 06:33 PM
we can forget all about what you said
Don't worry I will not forget what he asked
Reply

imaad_udeen
09-08-2005, 03:55 PM
The Communists supported many Arab countries in the middle east to balance American support for Israel. Also, many Arab governments in the Middle East were socialist.

Islam as a whole did not support communism. There is a big difference between Islamic countries and the Islamic religion.
Reply

soul
09-08-2005, 05:22 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by imaad_udeen
The Communists supported many Arab countries in the middle east to balance American support for Israel. Also, many Arab governments in the Middle East were socialist.

Islam as a whole did not support communism. There is a big difference between Islamic countries and the Islamic religion.
Saudi Arabia, Turkey and most other governments in the Muslim world have been in the side of the Americans.

The correct difference to mention is between Muslims and their governments. The governments or the elites that influence these governments were mostly bequethed to us Muslims by the colonial powers and have therefore been western puppets.

Even Turkey's non-colonial dictator Mustafa Kemal is reported to tell western journalists that he is against Islam, etc. during the Turkish national struggle. Otherwise, the western powers would certainly fight much harder against the Turks. Actually, after the Turks defeated only the Greeks, the westerners left Turkey to Dictator Kemal and his secular, anti-Islamic regime.

The west, that is, the ideological construct mentioned in the original article will not succeed in its evil design again.
Reply

czgibson
09-08-2005, 06:15 PM
Greetings,

Thanks for the article; there's very little in it that I disagree with. There are a couple of points I think could do with some qualification, though:

There is little or no admission that much of the mayhem in the world is caused primarily by Western policies that affect others in profoundly negative ways.
This admission is put forward by people in the West, but it's certainly true that Blair, Bush and other Western leaders don't talk about it much, if at all, in Bush's case. Many Western citizens are thoroughly sick of their governments causing "mayhem" around the world, and the article rightly points out this distinction between people and those who rule them.

“Theirs is an evil ideology”, thunders Tony Blair of Britain; US president George Bush has made even more ludicrous assertions, such as”they hate our freedoms”. That’s it; end of discussion.
These two tend to get very Manichaean when talking about this - everything turns into a duality: good/evil, right/wrong. "You're either with us or you're against us." There doesn't seem to be room for any other view, such as the view that there might be fault on both sides. The setting up of dualities of value like this is a classic strategy of Orientalists, as mentioned in Edward Said's classic book on the subject. The Crusaders obviously had these kinds of views, too.

Talk of “evil ideology” springs from the same source, even if those uttering such words call themselves enlightened and secular.
I should point out that Bush and Blair both claim to be committed Christians; Blair is a Protestant and Bush is a Methodist. And I don't think I'd call either of them "enlightened".

Peace
Reply

minaz
09-09-2005, 05:45 AM
Blair is going to convert to a Roman Catholic when he steps down as Prime Minister, and don't get me started on Bush and his whole "who-ha" parade :p
Reply

czgibson
09-09-2005, 03:49 PM
Greetings,

format_quote Originally Posted by minaz
Blair is going to convert to a Roman Catholic when he steps down as Prime Minister,
I did not know that - although Blair is clearly very fond of Catholicism; his wife's a Catholic and all of their children have been baptised as Catholics too.

and don't get me started on Bush and his whole "who-ha" parade :p
Yes, Bush's Christianity is obviously of a pretty fundamental sort. I suppose he thinks he's doing "God's work". As Bill Hicks said about Bush senior: 'This is the guy with his finger on the button [that commences nuclear missile launch]! "Tell me when, Lord, tell me when...." '

Peace
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: 10
    Last Post: 12-18-2017, 06:26 AM
  2. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 07-30-2007, 10:05 PM
  3. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 01-27-2007, 09:15 PM
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Holiday in the Maldives

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!