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." |
