On Muslim Doublespeak & Trans-Nationalism

[Guest guest]

THINKING ALOUD: Doublespeak and trans-nationalism —Razi Azmi

On Muslim Doublespeak & Trans-Nationalism

"Whatever Muslims might think, the world is divided into states and

people are recognised by their national, not religious, identities.

On the list of factors which, in the modern world, bring nations

closer or drive them towards hostility, religion undoubtedly comes

last."Muslims are well-known for their refusal to assimilate in any

society. Everywhere, they stand apart from the rest, and take pride

in their separateness. What better example of that than Pakistan

itself, the product of Muslim separatism in India."

 

 

Many Muslims, and not just the ulema, seem to have mastered the art

of doublespeak. They speak from both sides of the mouth, as it were,

depending on the occasion and the audience.

 

The most glaring examples of doublespeak are the issues of peaceful

coexistence and freedom of religion. The same people who constantly

breathe fire on "heretics" and "infidels" and preach jihad against

them also keep telling us that Islam is a religion of peace and

tolerance. Similarly, they cite the Quranic injunction that there

is "no compulsion in religion" at the same time as prescribing death

for apostates.

 

This art of doublespeak, which was first tested after 9/11 in the

heat of battle, so to speak, has matured into triplespeak after the

London bombings. If we exclude the small group of fanatics who

openly proclaim the suicide bombers as martyrs for Islam, most

Muslims will argue along the following lines:

 

First line of defence: there is no proof that the Muslims accused of

the London bombings actually carried them out. However, if they did

it, they deserve to be condemned. They are not "good Muslims".

 

Second line of defence: these youngsters are only reacting to

the "mass killings" of fellow Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan by

American and British troops.

 

Third line of defence: the suicide bombings were the result of

discrimination against Muslims in Great Britain and the failure of

British society to integrate them.

 

The first contention is not even worthy of rebuttal, but the other

two do need reflection. We will start with the last. To blame

Muslim "alienation" on British acts of omission and commission is

like rubbing salt on Britain's wound. Muslims are well-known for

their refusal to assimilate in any society. Everywhere, they stand

apart from the rest, and take pride in their separateness. What

better example of that than Pakistan itself, the product of Muslim

separatism in India.

 

Big talk and tall claims notwithstanding, the pathetic ground

reality has compelled millions of Muslims from South Asia, Turkey,

East Africa and North Africa to migrate to the West in search of a

better future, but their reluctance to integrate within the host

nations has left them backward. While the governments of these

countries spend significant resources on encouraging and assisting

Muslims to integrate, they themselves actively work to frustrate

those efforts.

 

Organisations such as Hizb-ut-Tahrir and the Tableeghi Jamaat are at

the vanguard of the Muslim determination to resist integration, but

they succeed only because the very thought of integration into

western society is anathema to ordinary Muslims. They openly admire

the West's material offerings, such as jobs, good salaries, social

welfare benefits, education, medical care, etc, while rejecting its

values.

 

In fact, the vast majority of Muslim immigrants in the West have

nothing but contempt for the concepts that underpin western society,

such as secularism, sovereignty of the people, equality of women,

children's rights, etc. Minority rights, freedom of speech and

religion and civil liberties are welcome only insofar as they apply

to societies where Muslims are a minority, as in India and the West.

 

As for the linkage between the London bombings and British policy in

Iraq, first of all, there is no "mass killing" of Iraqis by American

or British troops as alleged. Sunni insurgents are committing

atrocities, in particular against Shias and Kurds, and preventing

reconstruction work and the return of normalcy.

 

We live in an imperfect world where conflicts and wars have been the

norm rather than the exception. No country can ever allow a minority

to dictate or wield a veto over its foreign policy. Can the Muslims

of India, for instance, expect to force their government to adopt a

certain policy towards Pakistan or Bangladesh? Conversely, will

Pakistan tolerate it if its Hindu minority demanded that Pakistan

change policy on Kashmir?

 

The United States invaded Panama in 1989, arrested its army chief

and de facto head of state General Manuel Noriega, flew him in

handcuffs to the US, and tried and convicted him to 30 years

imprisonment on drug charges in an American court. He now languishes

in a jail in Florida.

 

But none of the millions of Latin American immigrants in the US went

on a killing spree to avenge the invasion and such appalling

treatment of the de facto head of state of a Latin American nation,

or to protest American interference in Nicaragua, El Salvador, Chile

and other Latin American countries.

 

The government of the United Kingdom, headed by Prime Minister Blair, adopted a certain policy towards Iraq that led to invasion

and occupation. It allowed the open expression of opposition to this

policy by its citizens, white, black and brown, Christian, Muslim,

Hindu, agnostic and atheist. An election was recently held, and

Blair retained power, albeit with a reduced majority. Would the

British government now countenance a bunch of disgruntled British

citizens, of foreign origin to boot, holding society hostage in

order to force a change in foreign policy?

 

It gets a bit more interesting when one realises that none of the

suicide bombers or the abortive bombers identified so far was of

Iraqi, Palestinian or Afghan origin, countries that seem to be the

focal points of Muslim concern. In a world of nation-states, what

entitles British citizens of Pakistani, West Indian or East African

origin to perpetrate terror in UK on behalf of Iraqis? And let us

not forget that the killing of nearly 3,000 innocent civilians in

the US by 15 Saudis and four Egyptians occurred before the invasion

of Iraq or Afghanistan.

 

Whatever Muslims might think, the world is divided into states and

people are recognised by their national, not religious, identities.

On the list of factors which, in the modern world, bring nations

closer or drive them towards hostility, religion undoubtedly comes

last, after military, economic, trade and other core interests.

Therefore, for example, Pakistan and Afghanistan, or Algeria and

Morocco, or Iran and Iraq, despite being contiguous Muslim

countries, are separate states more often hostile than friendly to

each other.

 

Iraq stands out as the Arab country least friendly to Pakistan since

1958, when it repudiated the Baghdad Pact, of which Pakistan was a

founding member. The government of Saddam Hussein was particularly

unsympathetic to Pakistan. And yet, in apparent sympathy with Iraq,

Pakistanis are filled with rage against the US and UK, both of which

have done much over the years to assist Pakistan.

 

Trans-nationalism or supra-nationalism, now confined to Muslims in

the concept of the ummah, can be a dangerous double-edged sword that

cuts both ways. Mercifully, the rest of the world does not divide

itself according to religious denomination, not yet at any rate.

 

God forbid, if Christians, Hindus and Buddhists, too, begin to

identify and organise themselves along religious lines, all hell

will break loose. We might have Thai suicide bombers blowing

themselves up in, say, a Kuala Lumpur bus to avenge the destruction

of the famed Buddha statues of Bamyan in Afghanistan. Or a bunch of

Philippino Christians might have gone on a killing spree in Dubai,

for example, to protest the Indonesian military's massacre of East

Timorese Christians in Dili in 1991.

 

The writer can be contacted at raziazmi

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_4-8-2005_pg3_2