| |
The other side of radical
Islam
By Syed Saleem Shahzad
KARACHI - In the wake of last month's two terror
attacks in Istanbul, and Western intelligence reports
that European cities could be the next targets, a new
round of crackdowns to weed out Islamic radicals has
begun in a number of countries, in particular Britain,
France, Italy and Germany.
At the same time,
the agenda of these radicals has once again come into
focus: it is widely seen in the West as a threat to the
Western secular system and civil society.
Intelligence agencies in the respective
countries trying to combat these terror rings call the
"war" a very difficult one as the suspects are not
aliens, rather, their ideas are considered alien in the
societies in which they live, even though, in most
cases, they are sons of the soil. Most are educated and
often come from well-to-do families, yet they have
adopted an extremist path that others believe will take
society back thousands of years.
However,
the concept of radical Islam, as understood
in the West, differs somewhat from what is
generally perceived in the Muslim world. To find out
more, Asia Times Online spoke with the central general
secretary of the Jamaat-i-Islami Pakistan (JI), Syed
Munawar Hasan.
The fundamentalist JI is the
largest of Pakistan's religious parties and the writings
of its founder in 1941, Syed Abul Ala Maududi, have
greatly influenced the lives of millions of Muslims
across the globe, including people such as Dr Ali
Shariati (an ideologue of the Iranian revolutionary
movement), Imam Ruhollah Khomeini - the leader of that
revolution in 1979, Syed Qutub (an ideologue of the
Muslim Brotherhood), and even statesmen such as King
Faisal of Saudi Arabia.
The JI is an important
constituent of the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA), an
alliance of six religious parties that scored
unprecedented electoral success in last year's November
national polls.
 In his early student days,
Munawar, now 59, was president of the
socialist
left-wing National Student Federation, but he
subsequently underwent an ideological u-turn and joined
the Islami Jamiat-i-Talaba, the JI's student wing, and
soon rose to the position of president. He has masters'
degrees in sociology and Islamic studies, and earned a
reputation at Karachi University as a star debater, both
in English and Urdu.
Sitting in the JI's head
office in Karachi, Munawar discussed his views on
radical Islamists, immediately setting the scene by
saying that he refused to "play on Western wickets",
inferring that the West devised its own misconceptions
and then beat the drum on them.
"The situation has always been misunderstood as far as
Muslim radicals are concerned, right from the beginning,"
said Munawar. "The problem lies with US propaganda
machinery, which has a modus operadi under which it establishes
its own theories which in fact do not exist in reality,
and then projects these to misguide people."
"For instance, al-Qaeda. I have never heard [the
US use] this name before September 11, nor anybody else.
But after the Twin Tower [September 11] incident took
place, the US projected this name and associated so many
myths with this organization. In fact, the whole picture
was prepared so beautifully that all struggles for
Muslim causes, including Palestine and Kashmir, were
automatically painted as terror activities. A
Palestinian throwing a stone at an Israeli occupying
force is considered as terror, not the Israeli gunship
helicopter that fires indiscriminate missiles on the
civilian population.
"It is openly demanded by
Israeli Prime Minister [Ariel Sharon] that an elected
representative of the Palestinians, Yasser Arafat, be
overthrown and sent into exile. Nobody speaks a word,
even when the whole Israeli cabinet states that they
would like to kill Arafat. Palestinian fighters
struggling for freedom are termed by the West as
terrorists, not the Israelis.
"So, these are all
concepts defined by West. I ask them to please define
the word 'terror'. If merely using militancy in the course
of a freedom struggle can be termed terror, what about
George Washington, whom England termed a terrorist for
using militant means? And how does one define the
process under which the US supplied arms and logistical
support to Catholic Irish 'freedom fighters'?"
Asia Times Online poses the question, though:
"But generally there is a perception in the West that
these struggles are not meant for freedom; instead, the
recent radical face of these struggles aims to eliminate
civil societies, liberties and human rights."
Munawar responds: "Western civilization is based
on falsehoods and denials of the basic truth. In the
past, Jews were victimized by Western nations, not
Muslims, and when they were victimized in the West they
only received protection in Muslim societies. Jews were
never allowed to visit their holy places under Christian
rule, while Muslims always allowed them to visit their
holy places in Palestine. These are the basic truths of
history. On the contrary, the West raises the slogans of
civil society and human rights and then attacks nations
without United Nations resolutions because under the UN
mandate it would have to adhere to many principles and
would not be able to unleash such brutalities.
"Have you read the
so-called road map for peace in the Middle East? In
such a lengthy paper many things are discussed, but you
will not find words such as 'human rights' and
'international law' because it is international law
which says that if any population is forced to leave its
houses, they will be helped and rehabilitated. So as I
said, the West always sets a world of beautiful words
and terms, but only when they suit its interests."
Asia Times Online then says: "Nobody denies a
struggle for the right of self determination for a
people, but I am afraid that terror methods are a
problem in this regard."
To which Munawar
retorts: "I am afraid, too, that it would be too
dangerous to analyze politics and terrorism separately.
Today, terrorism is a reaction to US policies. When
Sharon says 'to hell with the UN' and the Israeli
cabinet proclaims that they can kill Arafat, it is okay
and no one has a problem, but a freedom fighter throws a
stone or does more for his right of determination and he
is a terrorist."
ATol: "You reckon
that there are so many contradictions between the West
and the Muslim world, is there any chance of
reconciliation and dialogue between the two
civilizations?"
Munawar: "There is none.
The basic concepts of both civilizations are in total
contrast with each other. When I say this I do not address
Western civilization as Christianity. I speak of a
man-made system completely devoid of divine guidance. Our
concepts of God, human beings, the universe, are totally
in contrast with the concepts of the Western world.
We cannot segregate human lives into private and public,
our lives are ruled by divine guidance, not by man-made
rules based on his own prejudices and specific mindset
characterized by its own dilemmas and shortcomings.
Our concept of the universe is not materialistic,
and the result of an 'accident'. Instead, it
was a very well thought out process envisaged by the
creator of the universe with a plan. So these basic
concepts have made the difference between ours and
Western approaches."
ATol: "But
don't you believe Western civilization with its secular
system gives more liberties to its citizens to practice
their religion and live their lives with more
tolerance?"
Munawar: "Just study
these secular societies. They are not as liberal as they
are projected. You will find a clear seal on their
secular notions. Indian secularism is Hindu secularism,
you will find clear notions of Hindutva [nationalist
ideology] theories in it. Similarly, Western secularism
is clearly Christian secularism. In the 26 months after
September 11, not a single Christian has been declared a
terrorist. In Western societies, one has to be a Muslim
before one can be declared a terrorist. And take the
case of Timothy [McVeigh, executed on June 11, 2001 for
bombing the Oklahoma City federal building in which 168
people died]. Initially that incident was blamed on
Muslims. Before he was sentenced to death, when the
judge asked him to condemn his act of terror, Timothy
repeatedly insisted that what he did was against the
tyrannical system of the US, and that if he had another
chance he would do so again. These kind of non-Muslim
element in US society is never projected. Similarly, you
may remember the anthrax threat. It started soon after
September 11, and silently ended. What was it about? I
think it was again a ploy of the US administration to
secure mass support for its greater imperialistic global
designs."
ATol: "Sir, there is a
belief that the views you are expressing represent a
particular school of thought in Muslim societies, which
is extremist. For instance, there are Salafis (Wahhabis)
and there are Sufis (mystics). Sufi Islam does not say
what you are saying."
Munawar:
"These are Western projected theories and I am not
going to buy them. Actually, the West always cleverly
dishes out ideas that suit it at a certain point in
time. For instance, I have seen papers produced by US
think tanks saying that Islamic movements should be
allowed to contest elections and be part of the
establishment. In this way they thought that the
movements would be diluted and that they would be
discredited by not being able to govern. However, when
they saw that the Muslim groups were quite capable of
handling affairs, they then term us extremists and they
oppose the transfer of governments in many places, even
though it was done democratically. Now again I ask,
please define 'extremism'. In my opinion, someone who
violates the rules is extremist. Now take a look and see
who violates the rules. The West is the champion of
civil society, and yet it is the biggest supporter of
monarchies and dictatorships. At the funeral of King
Hussain of Jordan, five former US presidents were
present. Their presence was simply a message, 'The king
is dead, long live the new king'. The West does not have
objections to political suppression in Egypt, and does
not see as extremism what the government is doing to
suppress political opponents. So I think a definition of
extremism should be reviewed, and then we will see who
is extremist and who abides by the rules.
"As
far as Salafi and Sufi Islam is concerned, it is again a
foolish theory devised by the West. The West has to
target Saudi Arabia [birthplace of Osama bin Laden and
15 of the 19 September 11 hijackers, and where Salafi
Islam is strong], so it has devised this theory and
spread it through the media. Since our rulers are those
people who do not understand society, they blindly
follow these tricks and get adverse results, because in
fact this is not the case. For instance, 99 percent of
the Sunni population in Pakistan is Hanafis. There are a
small number who claim to be Salafis. The Salafi people
in Pakistan we came to know through their emphasis on a
few petty issues, like the length of a beard, the
pattern of clothing and the way in which to pray. Yet
the US projected them as the most dangerous creed on
earth. These views were reported in Pakistan. So
Pakistanis who were not Salafis at all, began to view
Salafi Islam as an anti-US brand, and they really took
an interest, and the numbers of those who claim now to
be Salafis has grown. So in fact, it is antagonism
towards America which has changed things, not anything
else."
(Copyright 2003 Asia Times Online Co,
Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact content@atimes.com for
information on our sales and syndication
policies.)
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
