By: Ahmed M. ELNAHAS – Castelfiorentino, February 17th 2013.
I hope that you have noticed that giant socio-cultural tsunami threatening to sweep away our proper existence.. A tsunami that followed a worldwide earthquake named “Globalisation”.. A Tsunami now known as: “Radicalism”.
After too many wars and sufferings, mankind thought to have finally conquered that tribal culture which ruled human societies, founded upon the solid conservative belief in a “National Identity”, and as such have become the tribe’s worshiped ‘TOTEM’.. An ideology which represented for long the main motivator for aggression and war. Now that very same Totem is returning to claim its initial destructive role.
Extreme Radical thoughts have successfully dug its way back (through the trenches of poverty, ignorance, intolerance, and greed) to infiltrate into ALL human ideologies and cultures alike: Capitalism, Communism, Left, Right, Center, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, and even among the simple pseudo-pagan Nomad tribes in Africa, Asia and Latin America.. But the problem is that the only one placed under huge magnifying glasses and powerful spot-lights is the “Islamic Radicalism”, which is prophesised as “Terrorism” and now became known as “IslamoFascism”!!
Today my concern is to analyse that cultural/political phenomenal term “IslamoFascism”! I took the liberty to call it phenomenal because it became a convenient “trendy” recurrence in conversational use behind the closed doors of international decision making laboratories, and by the same intensity as presented by the daily mumblings on newspapers, TV talk shows, receptions, bars and private saloons.
It became trendy since that day back in 2006 when, on board a transatlantic Aircraft Carrier G. W. Bush described his policies as a battle against “Islamic fascists... [who] will use any means to destroy those of us who love freedom”. An irresponsible statement yet convenient and coherent to the soundly conservative Republican policies of the United States that the man represented.
Proponents and critics of the term “IslamoFascism” rallied in long debates and filled the radio and TV airings arguing and demonstrating their views.
While Christopher Hitchens argues that there are similarities communing ‘Historical Fascism’ and ‘IslamoFascism’ claiming that “Both movements are based on a cult of murderous violence that exalts death and destruction and despises the life of the mind. Both are hostile to modernity (except when it comes to the pursuit of weapons), and both are bitterly nostalgic for past empires and lost glories. Both are obsessed with real and imagined "humiliations" and thirsty for revenge. Both are chronically infected with the toxin of anti-Jewish paranoia (interestingly, also, with its milder cousin, anti-Freemason paranoia). Both are inclined to leader worship and to the exclusive stress on the power of one great book. Both have a strong commitment to sexual repression, especially to the repression of any sexual deviance, and to its counterparts the subordination of the female and contempt for the feminine. Both despise art and literature as symptoms of degeneracy and decadence; both burn books and destroy museums and treasures”.
The cultural historian Richard Webster has argued that grouping many different political ideologies, terrorist and insurgent groups, governments, and religious sects into one single idea of “Islamofascism” may lead to an oversimplification of the phenomenon of terrorism.
Reza Aslan claims the term “falls flat” when describing groups like al-Qaeda, noting that they are anti-nationalist while Fascism is ultra-nationalist.
Commenting on the claimed incongruity between the “Muslim World” and “industrial state fascism”, US journalist Eric Margolis claims that ironically the most totalitarian Islamic regimes, “in fact, are America's allies”.
One of the world's leading authorities on fascism, Walter Laqueur, after reviewing this and related terms, concluded that “Islamic Fascism” and “Islamophobia” each in its way, are imprecise terms we could well do without but it is doubtful whether they can be removed from our political lexicon.
However, all that has no major relevance, since the phenomena has been present and physically practiced ever since the cult of the “Assassins” (in Arabic Gama’at Al Hashashin); and today, contrary to the “Historic Fascism” based upon an idea (later on resulting absurd), it is visible as a new kind of “Bureaucratic Fascism” through the attitudes of those who were taught and trained, over long years of systematic brain washing, that “once in power you hold on to it by any mean and measure” (terror and violence included), and do whatever you wish by it.
Also the phenomena is observed in a sort of “Family Fascism”, that emanates starting upwards right from the municipality and its immediate circle of fathers, nominating sons and brothers, everywhere. To promote the dream of a static fixed world, in which neither earth nor the sun would move; but in which, and by which, it is urgent to drag out of it any opponent non participant, in order to cancel Democracy’s fundamental right of being “Accountable For Own Actions”.
In such a territory two social behaviours will overlap.. The “Do It Yourself” anywhere: in classrooms or in the street, with the “Do It Yourself” with public money and public resources; in a world where arrogance coincide with force. But without any risk. The force to which aim this new-old young breed, is the force of a government completely deprived of any scruples; a government that would last for good authorising whomever wishes so of doing anything.. If one would adopt the condition of accepting everything.. A sad way for being young.
That is the alarming social trend I see happening in my beloved Egypt since the ages of “stability is the key to continuous and steady evolution and development”, the sacred motto of a Military Institution’s six decades of authoritarian reign.. A rule which allowed a constant and systematic brainwashing to younger generations thus creating totally possessed generations of blind devotees to that kind of State Fascism.
Now came the turn of the new comers from the Islamic circles, whom for long were eagerly aspiring to reign and finally have reached that target; for they have for long recruited, brainwashed and trained generations on blind and undisputed obedience.. That’s the real danger.. Not their being Muslims, since so far they have produced nothing but alarming signs whether inside the ruling halls or outside in the open on the streets; but because culturally, and politically, they are incapable of being Moderate; because their interpretation of moderation has nothing to do with our Prophet’s definition of the term some 14 centuries ago.
Some bright examples of State Fascism in the name of Islam are:
Ø “Jamaat Al Amr Belma’rouf” in Saudi Arabia which for ages have been, and still is, oppressing individual free choices of citizens in times of prayers, controlling women in the markets and children in schools!
Ø The “Taliban” movement which personifies the brightest example of State Fascism Oppression.. We’ve seen what they are capable of!
Ø And of course “The Islamic Republic” of the early Ayatullahs rule in times of Khomeiny in Iran.. Some of their practices are still in force, especially in media, in school and university professorships, in service and ruling institutions and of course in Mosques!
There are many other similarities in the far east like those in Indonesia, in Philippines and in Thailand.. And I believe that the wide spreading of the phenomena is dangerously threatening the cultural development and economic growth of the ‘Silent Majority’ belonging to the “Moderate Muslim Laicism*”.
I therefore invite you all to have a close look with an attentive critical eye wherever you may live and then..
Pass On The Word.
*Laicism, Secularism: attitude in support of the independence, or autonomy, of the Civil State from the Religious Institution’s interferences and impositions on political, civil and cultural levels. However Laicism and Secularism refer to two different possibilities of how to organize state policies toward religion. These concepts are, in a limited sense, similar to each other as they both include two elements: separation between state and religion (separation of political authority from religious authority) and freedom of religion. It is the visible appearance of religion that demarcates the difference between them. Secularism is usually described as more tolerant towards public visibility of religion; a secular state plays a passive role and allows religious symbols in the public domain. In laicism the state plays a more active role by excluding religious symbols from the public domain and thus confines religion to the private domain.
No comments:
Post a Comment