The End Of Days
By Anwaar Hussain
_______________________________________________________________________
The enlightened world citizenry
needs to jolt itself into action before these lunatics on both sides
decide to answer the call on one fateful night of full moon. Otherwise,
the ‘End of Days’ may not seem such a far-fetched idea.
_______________________________________________________________________
SUICIDE ATTACKS have been on the rise around the world
for about the last two decades. Since many such attacks, including those
of 9/11, have been actually, or purportedly, committed by Muslims, it has
been conveniently obvious that Islamic ‘fundamentalism’ and
‘militancy’ are the central causes. Another expedient conclusion has
been that these ‘fundamentalists’ abhor Christianity in general and
Western civilization, or it’s so called way of life, in particular.
Concurrently, as if on cue, the chant of the terms ‘Islamic
fundamentalism’ and ‘terrorism’ by the Western media, the policy
makers and many interested parties globally has been taken up at once.
This thoughtless overuse of these terms, in tandem with the current
Western onslaught on Islam, therefore, necessitates a serious inquiry.
What is ‘fundamentalism’ and what is the origin of the term? Are there
fundamentalist elements in Islam? Can the whole religion be branded as
radical if such elements do exist in Islam? When Western policy makers and
their mouthpieces use the term in the context of Islam, are there ulterior
motives? Who is primarily responsible for the beating Islam’s image is
taking? Are there any other fundamentalists active these days, or is it
just the Muslim ones?
As ‘terrorists’ are invariably labeled ‘Islamic fundamentalists’,
let us first focus on the word ‘fundamentalism’. Ironically, the term
‘fundamentalism’ is not Islamic in origin. It originated in a series
of pamphlets published between 1910 and 1915. Entitled "The
Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth," these booklets were written
by leading evangelical Christian churchmen in the face of a relentless
surge of secularism overtaking the Western world. By and large,
fundamentalism was a response to the loss of influence traditional
revivalism experienced in America during the early years of the twentieth
century. Conversely, in the Muslim world, unlike the Christian world or
its present secular expression, there has never been a group or sect that
called itself ‘fundamentalist’.
That fundamentalism, basically a Christian concept, never really died out,
is witnessed by the spectacular resurgence of ‘neo-fundamentalists’ in
the corridors of power in the United States. The President of United
States refers to the divine and invokes the name of God more often than
any other incumbent Western head of state. His second inaugural address of
20th January 2005 bears the most recent testimony to this fact.
If its designs are not sinister, the West must bear two things in mind
before branding any religion as ‘militant’ and its followers as
‘fundamentalists’.
First…every subject has certain fundamentals. Be it religion, business,
science, or any other issue, the underlying fundamentals are necessary to
be learned and practiced. Each of these subjects has certain
distinguishing features. Such attributes may alternatively be called the
fundamentals of these subjects. Physics, for example, would be impossible
to grasp without first tackling its fundamentals of Laws of Motion,
theories of relativity and atomic particles.
Likewise, all religions, such as Islam, have certain fundamentals. Even
atheists, moralists, humanists, not followers of any religions really,
follow certain fundamentals. Not following them means one cannot claim to
be a true devotee of that religion. Logically then, fundamentalism is an
approach, an attempt or a movement that holds onto or tries to uphold
these fundamentals. Muslims, like followers of all other religions,
believe in these as revered features and endeavor to conform to these as
best as they can…nothing more, nothing less and nothing extraordinary.
Second…a little lesson in history. What goes around comes around. When
religion is mixed with politics for underhanded motives, a dangerous brew
is the end concoction. If the Bin Ladens of today offer Paradise to the
fresh recruits who die in a holy cause, Pope Urban II did exactly the same
when enlisting soldiers for a crusade to "tear that land from the
wicked race" in AD 1095.
Slaughtering an infidel was advertised as a virtuous act ensuring profit
and prestige, both here and in the hereafter, for those joining the Pope's
army. For this Christian ‘Jihad’, the papal promise was complete
"atonement" from all sins and guaranteed entry into heaven, not
much different than the Bin Laden promise. The subsequent slaughter of
women, children, Jews and Muslims has been described by various historians
as having caused the streets of Jerusalem "to flow in blood up to the
bridal reins".
Presently, the West castigates moderate Muslims for not openly condemning
the acts of the Bin Laden ilk. Muslims may counter-argue that the
citizenry of the greatest Western power, the USA, has actually elected for
the second time the half mad neo-fundamentalists to run the most dominant
Western government, handing them the reigns of a most awesome military
power while their hands were still bloody from ongoing murders of innocent
human beings.
The Muslim fundamentalists, by and large, are fringe dwellers of Muslim
society, nowhere close to the seat of power in any significant Muslim
country--a fact even the Western world recognizes. To many Muslims,
therefore, it increasingly sounds like a purposeful attempt to create a
new rift in the already fragmented world of Islam.
One could argue that Christianity has matured and its afore-quoted bloody
manifestations are seen no more. This is a debatable argument at best. Not
very far back the Church was on a rampage in Europe and parts of the
American continent. And currently, the present American neo-fundos,
answering to imagined ‘divine calls’, are straining at the leash to
plunge the entire Muslim world in pools of their own blood. Given their
unparalleled military superiority, many neocon mouths salivate at the mere
mention of the word ‘Crusade’. Unbelievable as it is, the insanity of
this dangerous messianic strain of Christian fundamentalism is manifestly
clear in its attempts to ally itself with Israel in preparation for the
so-called ‘End of Days’.
It is not too difficult to argue that this heightened concern in the West
about the Muslim world suitably coincided with the demise in the mid 80's
of the Soviet Union. For almost fifty years in the last century the
socialist giant remained a favorite punching bag for the Western powers.
The very Muslim ‘fundamentalists’ of today were nurtured by the West
and used as pawns for an accelerated downfall of the Soviet empire. The
West is crying foul now that the chickens have come home to roost. Almost
all the so-called Muslim fundamentalist hot spots, e.g. Kashmir, Chechnya,
Palestine etc., existed then as now. None were then thought worthy of the
scorn now heaped upon them by the West.
The reason is simple. With the socialist apparition out of the way, it was
obvious that the Western world must have another demon to exorcise. If
‘Muslim fundamentalism’ had not been conjured up soon enough, another
evil empire would have been sought or invented. After all, the huge
military muscle built up for the earlier adventure could not be allowed to
lie idle and wither away for want of exercise. Moreover, power does not
operate in a vacuum, needing a medium to exert itself in or risk fading
away. The fateful arrival, therefore, of the neocons upon the scene has
only accelerated the inevitable.
If in the process some genuine Muslim struggles had to be sacrificed at
the altar of expediency, so be it. How else could the deliberate ignoring
of the Muslims’ genocide in Kashmir, Palestine and Chechnya, among many,
at the hands of the highly trained and very well equipped state forces be
justified while predominantly Christian East Timor got its independence
for a song by comparison? Why else is the plight of these Muslims only
whispered about but never brought to public attention by the leaders of
the Western media and public policy? Why else was democracy and nationhood
deemed good for the goose but not for the gander? Why else were Muslim
despots and dictators of every hue and color cultivated, pampered and
propped up by the West?
It is thus not very difficult to surmise that this deliberate use of the
expression “Islamic fundamentalism” by the West and their cronies is
mischievous, willful and malicious. It also explains to a great degree the
Western tendency to lump together acts of extremism, sabotage or
fanaticism on the part of some splinter groups in the Muslim world with
movements of Islamic revival.
That the attempt is both misleading and counter-productive obviously does
not ruffle their feathers. It is misleading because the origin,
terminology and description of ‘fundamentalism’ are borrowed primarily
from the Christian fundamentalist movement of the American South. It is
counterproductive because ordinary Muslims, or Islam, have nothing to do
with the acts of fanaticism carried out in the name of Islam. Bracketing
ordinary Muslims with the fanatics will only swell the ranks of the very
people giving sleepless nights to the West.
The theory peddled by reigning neocons that future 9/11s can be avoided
only by an across-the-board transformation of Muslim societies is, thus,
overly simplistic and ultimately dangerous. The presumed connection
between suicide attacks and Islam and the subsequent bogies of
‘fundamentalism’ and 'terrorism' are a transparent sham and deserve to
be treated with unmitigated contempt. Pursuing this farce may give birth
to self-serving domestic and foreign policies, like the Patriot Act and
Iraq/Afghanistan invasion, but cannot stem the danger of suicide attacks.
The fact is that a band of fringe lunatics does exist in Islam. It cannot
be overemphasized, nonetheless, that Islam itself has nothing to do with
their acts. Desperate situations spawn desperate actions. Therefore,
certain flag carriers of repressed Muslim peoples drawing attention to
their plight cannot just be branded as terrorism. Addressing their
grievances, on the other hand, would go a long way in eliminating the
danger.
One cannot but admit, however, that the primary responsibility for the
misperception of Islam in the West and among other non-Muslims lies with
none other than the debauched Muslim elites, past and present. Voluntarily
or otherwise, existing Muslim elites, with few exceptions, are entirely
dependent on the West for their otherwise untenable claim to power.
Unfortunately, the existing Western and the toady Muslim leadership acting
in concert are dealing a more devastating blow to Islam’s image than if
one of them were to act alone.
Grotesquely fascinating is the fact that some of these fundamentalist
packs on both sides argue that there is no such thing as peaceful
co-existence. One must, eventually, vanquish and destroy the other in
order to exist. Such insane reactionary forces give birth to equally
insane counter-reactionary forces—as indelible a fact as Newton’s
Third Law of Motion. The ensuing battle between these harebrained crazies
is neither a Crusade nor a clash of civilizations. It is simply a clash of
rabid fundamentalist dogmas.
In this clash of radical creeds, each camp will use whatever arms are
available to it. These will either be state of the art weaponry, like
Tomahawk Cruise Missiles, JDAMs, and Predator Drones etc., or, of
necessity, the primitive weapon of plain old suicide attacks. Either way,
innocent human beings caught in the crossfire remain the chief losers.
But even that is mild when compared to what may be in the offing. Talk of
nuking Mecca to send one final message to the Muslim world has already
done the rounds in the neocons’ camp. In turn, Muslim radicals too are
desperately seeking the horrible nuclear weapon. The enlightened world
citizenry needs to jolt itself into action before these lunatics on both
sides decide to answer the call on one fateful night of full moon.
Otherwise, the ‘End of Days’ may not seem such a far-fetched idea.
Copyrights : Anwaar Hussain
Courtesy : Fountainhead
Email ; eagleeye@emirates.net.ae
