View Point                                                                         Abid Ullah Jan

The Consequences of Denial

The recent wave of unprecedented anti-war protests could not stop bloodshed in Iraq and will never bear any fruit as long as we do not stop denying what the US administration has so explicitly declared - a war on Islam.

Besides failure of global protests, Muslims are facing grave consequences of this denial of reality. From the moment some leading Americans identified Islam as a source of violence, social responses of fear, denial, stigma and discrimination are haunting the Muslims who happen to believe that the US led misnomer adventures are, in fact, battles of a wider and irresponsible religious war.

Many Westerners have wholeheartedly participated in anti war protests. But they reject the argument that this is a war on Islam. Most importantly, they are not interested to know, why majority of Muslims believe so. Instead they insist only on having a 'yes' or 'no' answer from Muslims to the question: Do you believe it is a war on Islam? Discrimination then follows if the answer is 'yes' and spreads rapidly, fuelling anxiety and prejudice without any attempt to know the why part of the argument.

I have tried it myself but let us do it together and agree that this is not a war on Islam - a self-consoling assumption - and hope this is not. However, do we have a better answer or definition to the following questions other than 'because it is a war on Islam?'

1: Why do influential figures as Eliot Cohen of the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies and Kenneth Adelman of the Defence Department advisory policy board, a former Reagan administration official, criticize Bush for his efforts to assure Muslims that his war is against terrorism, not against their religion?(1) These influential policy-makers have yet to explain the meaning of their "war against Islamic civilization."

2: Do critics of Bush, such as Denial Pipes and Thomas Friedman, not believe that Islam is intolerant, hostile to Western values, proselytizing, expansionist and violent? Do they not prove that Islam itself is America's enemy? What does their belief mean?

3: What does the drawing with Joseph Sobran's January 2003 article mean in which threat of Islam is depicted in the form of a burning fuse of star and crescent which is about to detonate the globe? (2)

4: Why the implicit argument in almost all the American commentaries on international affairs is that Islam was hostile to the West before Israel came into existence, hence that the Israel-Palestine conflict has nothing to do with Islam's crisis with the West?

5: Why the evangelical Protestant clergyman who was part of the Bush's inauguration in 2001 asserts that Islam is an "evil"? Jerry Falwell, a conservative Baptist, said in the interview with CBS programme 60-Minutes that he had concluded that the prophet of Islam "was violent man, a man of war."(3)

6: Why do writings of leading analysts treat Islamic civilisation - a cultural phenomena - like a responsible political entity? Why do they identify members of Islamic civilization not in terms of their actions but in terms of what they are and what they believe - just as the Jews were collectively identified as Germany's enemies, deserving elimination?

7: Why persons like Ralph Peters are trying to make the world believe that "entire [Islamic] religious civilization…must change if it is to survive economically and culturally"?(4) Instead of blaming individuals, or a particular phenomenon, why are we force by leading news papers, such as LA Times to read: "Islam's outdated domination theology" needs to be defeated to "give peace a chance"?(5) Why so many others like Friedman love to worship Huntington's rotten theory and try to make others believe that an "understanding [of a 'different Islam'] is the necessary condition for preventing the brewing crisis between Islam and the West from turning into a war of civilizations"?(6)

What is at the back of their mind when they attempt to link "Violence and Islam" like Charles Krauthammer, who praises Huntington and declares: "There is no denying the fact… that 'Islam has bloody borders.'"?(7) This is how they fell into pernicious fallacy that civilizations, which are cultural phenomenon, can be treated as if they were responsible political entities. Does it not reduce Muslims identification to merely what they are rather than what they do?

8: What to do with Robert Tracinski, who clearly states: "Politicians, the press, and academics have rushed to declare that this is not a war between Islam and the West. Islam, we have been told again and again, is really 'a religion of peace.' Perhaps the reason we have to be told this so many times is because it so obviously contradicts the facts"?(8)

Furthermore, Anthony T. Sulliva, an associate at the Center for the Study of the Middle East and North Africa, admits: "There is the policy posture that suggests Washington's agreement with the notion that Islam is inherently a 'fanatic' religion. This belief was recently given voice by former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, echoing earlier comments by American officials."(9) And Ignacio Ramonet declared in Le Monde as early as 2001: "You enjoyed anti-communism. You're going to love anti-Islamism."(10) And the taste of it lies in the media pieces constructed around the argument: "Are we at war with Islam? Most definitely not. But, Islam is at war with us. In fact, Islam has been at war with the West… ever since the days of Muhammad."(11)

9:Can we keep on assuming that this is not a war on Islam when persons of authority such as Randall Price, author of Unholy War, keep on telling their people: "In 2002 we ask the question, 'is the US waging a war with Islam?' If it isn't, it should be"?(12)

10: Where do the countless cases of implicit value judgements lead us to whereby comparison of "Evil vs Good" is made? For instance, in an interview on Cal Thomas radio November 2001, Attorney General John Ashcroft said: "Islam is a religion in which God requires you to send your son to die for him. Christianity is a faith where God sent his Son to die for you."

11: How can we suppose otherwise when the American commentators clearly state that this is "the first US religious war."(13) And that there is no difference between differently labelled Muslim groups. In a seminar on "the identity of our enemy," Danial Pipes said: "Distinguishing between 'mainstream Islamists and fringe ones is like making a distinction between mainstream Nazis and fringe Nazis." As he put it, "They're all gunning for the same totalitarian goals, and which methods they're using at this moment I don't consider very important at all."(14)

One cannot look at the above mentioned factors in isolation; they indicate a mode of thinking, a belief system that is not only bigoted but deliberately evades the causes of the world's problems and aims to provide cover for exploitative and hateful US policies towards Muslims.

It must go without saying that anti-Islam propaganda has led to a social phenomenon which is as much harmful as the economic sanctions, invasions, bombings and occupations. Across the world the unjust treatment of Muslims in places such as Iraq, Palestine, etc has shown itself capable of triggering responses of compassion, solidarity and support, bringing out the best in Western people, their families and communities. But the effects of the anti-Islam propaganda are also so obvious in the form of stigma and invisible discrimination, as individuals considering it a war on Islam have been rejected by their associates, their loved ones and their communities in the West.

Unfortunately, authors of the war are calling is a war on Islam, but its victims are stigmatised if they say so. Stigma is used to marginalize, exclude and exercise power over Muslims who think so. While the societal rejection of certain Islamic symbols and groups may predate the recent conflict, the public demonization of Islam has, in many cases, reinforced this stigma. By blaming certain individuals or groups, society can excuse itself from the responsibility of caring for Muslims as a whole. This is seen not only in the manner in which Muslims are often viewed as the source of violence and bringing extremism to the West, but also in how Muslims are denied equal opportunity and access to the services and treatment they need.

Country after country would become victim of US aggression and laws, rules and policies would further increase stigmatisation of Muslims in non-Muslim countries with the continued denial that the US is bent upon defeating Islam. The worldwide wave of protest would bring not fruits until it is recognised that the US administration is engaged in an irresponsible religious war.

References
1: William Pfaff, Totalitarian Thinking, IHT, Thursday, December 5, 2002.
2: Joseph Sobran, The losing War, January 2003, see http://www.sobran.com/losingwar.shtml
3: Associate Press, "Falwell Calls Muhammad a Terrorist," October 4, 2002, See http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/04/national/04FALW.html?ex=1034733929&ei=1&en=6f3ed8c443977c8b.
4: Ralph Peters, Turn East From Mecca: Islam's Future Will Be Decided on Its Frontiers, Washington Post, Sunday, December 1, 2002; Page B01.
5: Yossi Klein Halevi, "Islam's Outdated Domination Theology," Los Angeles Times, December 4, 2002
6: Thomas L. Friedman, An Islamic Reformation, New York Times, December 04, 2002.
7:Charles Krauthammer, Violence and Islam, Washington Post, Friday, December 6, 2002; Page A45.
8: Robert Tracinski, A War against Islam, Ayan Rand Institute, 2001, see http://www.aynrand.org/medialink/columns/rt102901.shtml
9: Anthony T. Sulliva, American policy and Islam, Washington Times, March 18, 2002.
10: Ignacio Ramonet, "An enemy. At last," Le Monde Diplomatique, October 2001
11: Joseph Farah, Are we at war with Islam?, World Net Daily, June 25, 2002. see http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28074.
12: Randall Price, Are We at War with Islam? See http://www.worldofthebible.com/newslett.htm
and http://www.albatrus.org/english/lien_from_oz/are_we_at_war_with_islam.htm
13: James O. Goldsborough, "Beginning a modern religious war," San Diego Union-Tribune, March 3, 2003.
14: "Defining the enemy," Editorial, Washington Times, July 2, 2002