It is as imperative for Muslims
to embrace the politics of moderation as it is for the western governments and
media to open space to the voices of moderate Muslims and give them an
opportunity to be leaders in their communities. All this discussion about this not being the "real" Islam and no
"real" Muslim would do something like that -- all these lines are becoming stale
and pointless. No "real" anybody would do anything about anything: let me
assure you of that much. This applies to believers of every religion. No one
says that all Christians are evil or accuses the Holy Bible of preaching hatred, though the violence of colonialism
and anti-semitism is enough evidence to make a statement like that seem
plausible to the jaundiced eye. Therefore, the discussion along the lines of
whether the religion preaches violence or not, has really nothing to do with
what so-called believers do in their private and public lives.
The reaction we've seen in the
past few days to the film that denigrates Islam's Prophet held by believing
Muslims as a model to humanity with a silly and mediocre title like The Innocence of Muslims (which by the
way is supposed to be ironic; that's enough clue as to the miniscule IQ of its makers)
is shocking to say the least. This is a film made by some ignorant right-wing
Christian fundamentalist group or individual who is not a mainstream film maker
with a large audience.
I did not like James Cameron's
movie True Lies (1994). It shows Arab Muslims in such
shamefully poor light. In my own experience I've never met an Arab Muslim or a
Muslim for that matter who had extreme views about anything. Usually they are
moderate people though discussions on religion can acquire a degree of
sensitivity which is true of people who belong to any religion. I would've
understood any protest -- within certain limits and non-violent, needless to say
-- that challenged a movie like that of Cameron because it has an audience who
might be influenced in a negative manner. But, a movie like the current one which
is causing all these protests across the world is the ranting of a fanatic and best
ignored. This wholesale global reaction to a film whose only purpose is meant to
provoke, lead by fundamentalist groups, is gradually reaching Beckettian
proportions in terms of its absurdity.
The killing of the U.S. Ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens in
reaction to the film is unforgivable to say the least; what makes it a horror
is the fact that an ambassador is a symbol of a nation's integrity. More than symbolism,
embassies are institutions that are born when nations come into existence. To
kill an ambassador is not only to violate those principles on which nations are
founded but also upon which they agree to live in a state of peaceful
coexistence. It violates the laws of hospitality that separate the civilized
from the barbaric simply because the latter lacks the ability to discriminate
what is just from what it unjust.
There
are certain issues at stake here. Anti-Americanism in the third world needs greater
clarification than is usually admitted. If Anti-Americanism meant
anti-imperialism it makes sense at a certain level. Violent reactions of the
kind we're witnessing on television do not help the cause of Anti-Americanism
especially when it comes to the Muslims. On the contrary, it gives a poor and
unfortunate image of the religion and the believers. There is a need for
liberal Muslims who genuinely believe in dialogue to come out strongly against
the extremist elements in the religion. The politics of moderation is vital for
them to create a serious anti-imperial platform that will challenge western
hegemony in the Middle East and by extension in the third world.
Another
important point is not just the image but the substance as well. Is this kind
of meaningless reaction a reasonable one? Given the nature of internet-based
technologies anybody can practically post anything against anybody and
sometimes without any basis at all. These are purely acts of prejudice and
blind hatred to which my response would be: just ignore them! How many protests
are you going to begin for every video or article or cartoon posted by some
joker on the net or in a newspaper? How can you be a puppet to somebody's whims
and fancies knowing full well that the other person wants you to react in this
particular manner? It just becomes more and more insane to say the least.
Responses have to be carefully
thought out and loaded with meaning keeping the power of the enemy in view. The
US and its allies continue to be powerful and to dislodge them would mean a new
era in the history of humanity. In one of his interviews to David Barsamian
(from the remarkable book Confronting
Empire), the late Eqbal Ahmad (d. 1999), a true embodiment of the kind of
politics of moderation that I'm talking about says: " I don't think American power is permanent. It itself is
very temporary, and therefore its excesses are impermanent and reactions to
those excesses have to be, by definition, impermanent." He further adds:
"Britain had a will to dominate in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.
Britain punished for very small crimes its most famous empire builders. Robert
Clive was impeached and Warren Hastings was impeached, because an imperial
society instinctively knows that it will not command respect on a global scale
unless it shows uprightness at home. Unless it shows uprightness at home, it
cannot commit excesses abroad. That's why imperial countries very often tended
to be puritanical societies. The people of America don't want Clinton to resign
because they think he's been a good president. They can separate his being
commander- in-chief from his personal behavior. This is not a people with a
will to rule. This is a people with a will to violence, yes, but not a will to
dominate." The last line is of course the most important one. The US
professionalizes in the art of violence but not in the politics of domination. They
are seriously impoverished at that.
American
imperialism is a temporary one and no one knows it better than those in
positions of power in the American establishment. The politicians and the
military know it. The ones who don't want to know it are the ones in Hollywood
and the MNCs who are perpetuating the illusion of American invincibleness.
American imperialism has neither the relentless character nor the ruthless cunning
of British imperialism. In allowing a complete moron who made the film The Innocence of Muslims and a company
like Google (which refuses to remove the film from its youtube website, knowing
full well that American lives are endangered in the process) to call the shots,
you don't think this imperial project would last for long. If you are engaged
in taking by stealth and force the resources of the third world, the least you
could do is respect the people whom you exploit, however hypocritical and farcical
that respect might be. Firstly, you are in their country without their
permission and secondly, you humiliate them and expect them not to react, especially
when the masses know full well that you are an enemy and not a friend! I don't
know how that works out to the benefit of the imperial project. Already the US
shows signs of a strained nation ready to collapse. Its imperial agenda is not
going to work too long. Eqbal Ahmad remarks:
"A will to
dominate means a willingness to sacrifice, to pay the price of it. The American
public does not want American boys dying. So, in Somalia, when American Marines
were attacked, the United States pulled out and sent in Pakistanis to do their
dirty work and clean up the mess. They don't want to send troops abroad. They don't
want to die in foreign lands. That is, they don't want to pay the price of
power abroad, which they were willing to do during much of the Cold War."
Given this background, acts of
terrorism like the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center only prolong
the life of the imperial machine that is not willing to pay any price for its
domination of the world. The September 11 attacks gave a new lifeline to the
imperial dream. And acts like this current spate of violence, where fringe
groups are allowed to show the worst side of believers before a media that is
only too happy to project them as barbarians with the others maintaining a
polite restraint while silently approving is certainly not helping the Muslim
image globally.
The politics of the Muslim world
-- how they define Anti-Americanism, their understanding of the connection
between religion and politics and the need to separate one from the other, the
need for modern education along the lines of social change, the need to bring
more women into the limelight and give them an opportunity to occupy public
spaces (it's not a coincidence that in all the meaningless protests the women
are conspicuous by their absence), the need to remove some of the ills that
plague their own societies, the need to embrace moderation as a way of life, the
need to use moderation as a political weapon to fight western propaganda -- all
these are absolutely imperative in order for them to come to terms with the
fact that Anti-Americanism and Anti-American are two different things.
There are Americans who are
Anti-American in the sense that they share some of the anxieties and political
arguments made across the third world. An American intellectual like Chomsky is
the best example of one who falls in that category of people. It's high time
that the Muslim groups stopped this business of making fools of themselves by
protesting in a violent manner for every little perceived or real insult to
their religion or its remarkable Prophet. It doesn't help them in anyway. Not
only is the sympathy of the world lost on them which is how they must build a
strong political platform; in addition, there is no way they would ever see real
liberation for one thousand years with this kind of a completely irrational
attitude not to mention a self-defeating one.
1
1
1
