Interpreting Islam from a Eurocentric Point of View

According to George W Bush, one of the demands of the "war on terrorism" is that every nation has to "prove" its loyalty to the US, or suffer the consequences. It is clear that one of the "results" which Bush is demanding from "moderate Arabs" is to show their ability to politicise the Islamic faith. This will "prove" they are not terrorists in return for which the administration of George W Bush will supposedly help them remain in power.

No sooner said, no sooner done. The brother of the former King of Jordan was showcased on Larry King Live to quote a verse from the Qu'ran that he and King declared proved that Islam is against terrorism and upholds the view of tolerance which is compatible with "western civilised values".

Conversely, what the Western powers call Islamic fundamentalism is portrayed as uncivilised. Demonstrations in countries such as Nigeria or Pakistan against the US aggression against Afghanistan are called "fanaticism". Newspaper headlines said "religious riots" are taking place.

The Anglo-American politicised notion of tolerance is that minorities within a society and whole nations and countries within the world are to be tolerated so long as they accept the Anglo-American values and institutions and serve them. In this way they prove they are "fit to govern". It has nothing whatsoever to do with Islam, the Islamic development, traditions or conceptions they give rise to.

Creating a demand worldwide where people of Islamic faith have to take a defensive posture by "proving" that Islam is compatible with the Anglo-American imperialist notion of tolerance will not do. Why should the 1.3 billion people who are said to espouse the Islamic faith have to "prove" their "loyalty" to these arrogant big powers?

Anglo-American Definitions of Secularism and Tolerance

The necessity to oppose the Anglo-American definitions of "secularism" and "tolerance" cannot be overestimated given the manner in which the world is being taken to the brink of war over "values". They are used to justify imposing Anglo-American institutions onto the entire world. It was on this basis that the British used the policy of "divide and rule" on the Indian subcontinent and fomented devastating communal massacres, creating the modern states of India, Pakistan and others. The rights of nations, nationalities and tribal peoples were trampled underfoot by politicising language rights and religious affairs amongst other things. The states in the Middle East were created in a similar fashion. Terrible consequences have been the result which must be addressed today if further tragedies are to be averted.

There is a blackmail not to oppose the Western conception of "secularism" and "tolerance" for fear of being accused of communalism or terrorism. But the Anglo-American notion of secularism is communalism just as the conception of "tolerance" is a form of racism. Both sanction state-organised racist attacks and state-terror and must be opposed. Similarly, all suggestions that Islamic Republics are medieval because they do not recognise the separation of Church and State and which condemn them on the basis of Eurocentric prejudices and considerations are purely for purposes of intimidating progressive people and stopping them from participating in the anti-imperialist struggle on one hand, and in the struggle for the renewal of their own societies by affirming their own right to conscience and their right to their own way of life, on the other. Looking at the Islamic experience from the angle of European experience which mandated the separation of Church and State within concrete historical circumstances will not do.

Institutionalised Christianity has plagued humankind since the time of the Crusades and throughout the Middle Ages. It was institutionalised Christianity which imposed church dogma on the peoples of Europe and kept them in ignorance, not Islam. It is institutionalised Christianity which has been the refuge of all reactionary ruling circles since the Crusades, not Islam. Furthermore, to even suggest that in the United States or Britain there is a separation of Church and State is to not listen to the manner in which this "war on terrorism" is being waged. The reactionary forces which have come to the forefront in the US are pushing a version of Christian fundamentalism seen in the manner in which the "war on terrorism" is being portrayed in a messianic fashion against "the forces of evil".

What purpose will it serve to take what Islam stands for completely out of context of the historical development which was and is completely different to the development of what is called Western civilisation? Islam has given rise to very concrete beliefs, traditions and customs, many brought forth to solve very definite problems of the societies which gave rise to it or espoused it and others because of an inability to do so. Needless to say this human experience is very different to the one which arose in the European context. If Islam is to be discussed and its contributions appreciated and if it is to be helpful to the peoples of Islamic belief and of the entire world in providing today's problems with solutions, it must be on its own terms and on the terms of the experience and problems which the people from these countries and the world experience.

Islam like everything else in the world needs renovation, but not on the basis of the western experience, let alone Anglo-American imperialist "Western values" given the status of "universal values". The pressure on people who espouse the Islamic faith is very great. This is a period of reaction, of counter-revolution, of retrogression in which the US imperialists are fighting to impose their hegemony over the entire world. Their demand for adherence to Anglo-American imperialist values and institutions is reactionary. The Islamic world is retaliating against the pressure exercised by Christian fundamentalism or what are called Western values or the values of the civilised world and the Anglo-American economic and political agenda. Far from criminalising such attempts to work out their own way of life, these attempts should be supported and provided with the kind of guidance and theory they require.

To defend Islam on its own terms is a necessary task today. All attempts to defend Islam on the basis of considerations which George W Bush and the like consider to be "civilised values" should be rejected with all the contempt they deserve. There is no need for human beings, no matter what their beliefs, to be apologetic. All human beings and their beliefs are valid and only Hitlerites will argue otherwise.