Notwithstanding the admirable role of the Prime Minister and the countrymen f New Zealand in general, what happened in New Zealand is the grim reminder that Western Radicalism is a much bigger threat to the world than “radical Islam”. I am reproducing here excerpts from my book, “Muslim Vision of Secular India: Destination & Roadmap”, which spell the motivations and nature of Western Radicalism.
Dr. Javed Jamil
In a conference in an Indian University, a well-known American Peace activist spoke about the need of dialogue with the Western analysts elaborating how a renowned TV anchor changed his view about Radicalization of Muslims after having a dialogue with him. While previously he talked of “Radical Islam”, now he agreed that it would be more appropriate to talk of “Radicals within Islam” as only about 4 per cent of Muslims held radical views. The logic was good-intentioned but it was faulty, as it was apologetic and defensive, awe-inspired by the might of Western propaganda. It succeeded only in slightly diluting the blame on Muslims as a whole and failed to put the greatest truth of the modern times: that it is almost total radicalization of West rather than any of Muslims, which has been the biggest foe of peace in every dimension of individual and organized human existence in recent times.
West believes that its set of political, social and economic ideologies, what I call Westernism, is the only correct ideology for the world, and it alone has the right to define various concepts and parameters, and it alone has the right to endeavour through all possible ways, for the propagation and implementation of its ideology. Of course, they have made the w2orld believe, even against their inner beliefs, that religion, individually or collectively, has no rol;e to play in the modern “civilized” world. If the proponents of any other ideology, religious or non-religious, challenge the concepts of Westernism and try to prove the superiority of their ideas, they are mocked, ridiculed and rejected. They are described as “uncivilized”, “radicalized” and “extremist” forces. It is therefore no surprise that even “radicalization” has been given a definition, which suits their ends. So, according to Wikipedia,
“Radicalization (or radicalization) is a process by which an individual or group comes to adopt increasingly extreme political, social, or religious ideals and aspirations that (1) reject or undermine the status quo or (2) reject and/or undermine contemporary ideas and expressions of freedom of choice.”
“Status quo”, of course is the dominance of Westernism, which should therefore not be challenged. Further, “Freedom of choice” too does not mean absolute freedom of choice but only freedom of choices determined by the ideologues of Westernism. As part of the status quo, the world cannot be given any other choice except to endorse the Western Model of Democracy, Western paradigm of secularism, and Western definitions of “Human Rights”, free market, freedom of expression and “freedom of choice”, Western concepts of Society, West-dominated international organisations, West-sponsored treaties and Western principles of armed interventions. Moreover, Western leaders and analysts alone have the right to interpret their own ideas, concepts, treaties and agreements in their own ways, even if their interpretations continue to change from time to time, and from country to country. It is no surprise therefore that West alone (except a few others who have become powerful enough not to accept their monopoly) has the right to amass all kinds of weapons and use them wherever they want for the “protection” of their “interests”. Again, it is only their interests that matter, and others have absolutely no right to work in accordance with their interests.
The most notable form of radicalization of West is its theory of violence and its involvement in violent conflicts. It is working on a well-planned categorization of violence to suit its political and economic ends. Instead of reacting on the basis of the magnitude of violence, its reaction is based on the political considerations. Any violence, which is linked or can be made to appear linked to religion, especially Islam, is worthy of highest condemnation, but any violence, which is related to the effects of West’s ideological or political positions is either not talked about or becomes “collateral damage”.
Look at the American interventions in the Middle East. The latest round of extreme radicalization of America began with 9/11 attacks. Those, whoever they were, who executed the plan perished with the planes. The accused mastermind — a formal enquiry was not even required for the American administration to act on its assumptions – was killed in an isolated attack about 11 years later in Pakistan. In between the coalition led by the US devastated two countries and killed 2 million innocents who had nothing to do with 9/11. But the international media did never allow the role of West to be debated in Terrorism, and whenever terrorists’ attacks occur, there is a repeated focus on the radicalization of Islam and Muslims. Nobody dares to ask the Western powers why they killed 2 million innocents, and how they should be made to compensate for this colossal loss of lives.
In recent years, Western role has been prominently there in all the conflicts in the Middle East. But again, it can be seen that their weapons go to the side, which toes their lines, and against those which have refused to surrender to their diktats. And always, the media would blame the loss of lives on the forces that are not pro-West. In Syria and Libya, they supported the rebels supplying huge weaponry and all the intelligence required for their operations and held the governments responsible for the bloodshed. In Libya, they succeeded in toppling Gaddafi, in Syria they failed to defeat Assad. In Yemen, they are supporting the President, who has fled to Saudi Arab. In Egypt, they helped the military stage a coup against an elected President. They were the major suppliers of manpower and weaponry to ISIS when it was battling Assad but were now bombarding them in Iraq, when they threatened American allies in the region. For long, they were only a friendly enemy, as their presence helped America in perpetuating their hold in the region.
As discussed before, the categorization of violence has been on political rather than humanitarian lines. If magnitude of the loss of lives due to man-made causes is taken as the criterion of categorization, the following categories will emerge:
1. Violence caused by human actions: abortions killing more than 50 million humans before birth every year
2. Diseases like AIDS which has consumed 40 millions in last 2 decades (owing to uninhibited sexuality)
3. Alcohol related deaths: around 2 million every year
4. Murders: again around 20 million every year
5. Wars which have consumed 180 million lives in last century and about 2 million since the beginning of this century;
6. Civil wars which might have consumed around 0.3-0.5 million since the year 2000
7. Terrorism, which may have killed around 0.3 million in last 25 years (including Al-Qaeda, LTTE, Indian terrorist organisations like Naxalites)
(These are broad estimates only.)
Most of these are the results of the concepts of “freedom” promoted by West and political ideologies aimed at hegemonisation of the world by West, which they have pursued throughout the modern history. Here are a few examples that sum up the radicalization in social, ideological, political and economic arena:
1. The United Nations is not an organization where all countries have equal status. Five big powers hold the veto power, and nothing can happen in the world without their approval;
2. While these 5 and a few more can amass nuclear arsenals, others are bound by Non-Proliferation treaty. Anyone trying to acquire nuclear technology, especially if it is not a Western ally, will have to face toughest sanctions and threats of war;
3. The Big Powers can always invade other countries on one pretext or the other; but they cannot be made accountable for their actions;
4. Western ideological positions are allowing, in fact promoting, massive commercialisation of human susceptibilities at colossal cost of human lives and health problems.
5. Their concept of “Freedom of Choice” only means “Freedoms” that suit their economic designs. They can impose bans, restrictions and sanctions on anyone or any practice, which does not suit them. So, promiscuity is permitted (with men and women having an option of having as many partners as they like) but polygamy is banned. Marriage before a specified age is punishable under law, but young boys and girls are always free to have sex despite the fact that such relationships lead to huge numbers of foeticide and mortality and morbidity due to sex related diseases. Abortions are permitted but there have been severe restrictions in most countries on multiple children.
6. When they speak against religious morality, they use “Freedom of expression” as the cover to do it, but when somebody speaks against dangerous practices, he is hounded as an enemy of freedom.
7. When some rapists or murderers are given death sentences, the Human Rights Activists call for an end to death sentence on the ground of “Right to life” but they forget the same right when it comes to abortions by choice, as if the aborted foetuses are not humans. Human rights activists also never call for laws that can minimize murderous assaults. “Human Rights” in modern world have been reduced to saving criminals from gallows, protecting homosexuality as right (a right which reduces life expectancy of the population by a substantial margin) and protecting the rights of women to kill their foetuses. Obviously, “Human Rights” is a concept designed under the patronage of market forces.
8. The champions of “Women’s Rights” forget that there cannot be a bigger blot on the face of mankind than that women sell their sexual services, through compulsion or choice, endangering the lives of prostitutes themselves, their clients as well as all those who come into contact with their clients. In the name of “Equality of Women”, men have transferred a lot of their burden to women, while women continue to suffer on account of the new sex and sexuality. It is they who have to take precautions against pregnancy, it is they who become pregnant even when they do not want, it is they who have to abort killing their own children, it is they who have to look after their children if they decide to take birth and in large number of cases, they have to share the burden alone.
It is clear that radical Western ideologies and radical Western powers have disturbed the whole equilibrium and harmony in society. They first commercialise problems and then they commercialise solutions. And they think they alone have the right to invade and bombard countries, they alone have the right to decide all the major policies of the world; they alone have the right to decide the course the countries want to pursue and they alone have the right to teach lessons to others. They have forced the sciences to abandon any discussion on the role of God, they have devised all indices and parameters in a way that suits them; and they do manoeuvre statistics the way they like.
West thinks that West alone knows what is best; and West alone knows how to act or react. What else can be a more extreme form of radicalization? All others forms of Radicalization in the current world including “Radical” Islam are the product, direct or indirect, of Western radicalism. If the world is to be saved from chaos and devastation, the only solution is to abandon all forms of radicalization. And before asking others, West being the leader will have to abandon it, not in parts but in totality. Others will automatically fall in line.
If I wanted, I would have replaced “Radical West” with “Radical Christianity”. Western countries have an overwhelming majority of Christians, and most of the Western political leaders and armymen are Christians, at least in theory if not practice. It is also well-known that many Western leaders including George Bush have had deep religious commitments. But I purposely avoided it because it is not the religion but their political and economic ambitions that give rise to radicalism. Similarly, if a few Muslims fall to radicalism, it is their reaction to West’s political designs (or those of other elements hostile to Islam or Muslims) and not their (West’s) religious beliefs, which drive them to react in a violent way. Even otherwise, it is nonsense to describe violence more worthy of condemnation if it has any direct or indirect relation with religion than if is related to any secular ideology.
The magnitude and not the identity of the perpetrators and victims nor the motive and the method should be more important in planning the solution.