Lordre: Islam

Showing posts with label Islam. Show all posts

Is normalisation with Israel aimed at Islam's destruction?

Israel’s efforts at normalisation with Arab countries and trade deals with them, like that recently agreed with the United Arab Emirates, are not based on goodwill but at improving their own situation in what they see as a hostile region.

Israel is also developing military cooperation with unpopular authoritarian regime Bahrain to help extend some of its power to the Persian Gulf and threaten Iran. This shows the alignment of such an unthinking regime with outside powers against the regional interest.

Holy site under attack

At the same time, some Israelis push for demolishing the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock to replace these with a Jewish temple. Violence by Israeli security forces at the Islamic holy site has increased the sense that it is in peril. Declaring Jerusalem as a Jewish-ruled city and the Israeli capital rather than an Islamic one (as done by the United States and Israel) can already be seen as a comparable attempt to undermine Islam, as it would be to put the other two holy sites of Mecca and Medina under their military occupation.

Israel's so often repeated 'right to exist' in no way depends on attacking Islam (as can be seen by Arab states being willing to normalise relations), yet this is what Israel chooses to do. Every time it seems that Israel was accepted in the region, Israel itself will commit some kind of outrage, as if it wants conflict. Destroying the Al-Aqsa site would create an unending state of conflict in which Muslims would either be actively resisting Israel and the West, or Islam would be destroyed.

Making atrocities manageable

It could be that many Israelis believe Islam is irreconcilable with the existence of their state, whose only previous iteration (ancient Judea) predated Islam as a religion. Therefore, they should be expected to seek the destruction of Islamic holy sites.

Clearly, normalisation efforts with Muslim countries would make atrocities much more manageable for Israel, by making it difficult for those Muslim countries to uncouple from Israel economically, much less commit themselves to any form of resistance against Israel.

The second round of the French presidential election is due on 24 April, and the imperilled identity of the country is the one indisputable thing that a majority of French seem to agree on.

Both rival candidates, Emmanuel Macron and Marine Le Pen, are controversial, especially when it comes to their relations with French Muslims. Who is perhaps worse is not entirely clear.

Two demagogues?

Marine Le Pen compared Muslims praying in the streets, with the German occupation of the country. Emmanuel Macron stigmatises Muslims and cracks down on those who raise their voices in opposition to this. In addition, who can forget his steadfast defence of offensive drawings of the Islamic Prophet Mohammed?

Worst of all for French Muslims could be Macron's goal to rewrite Islam to be more liberal and appropriate to his vision of France. He also made an effort to close the French Council of the Muslim Faith, dissatisfied with it and with any perceived foreign influence, including simply the international communion that exists between believers across the world.

Unfortunately, France should simply be considered hostile to Islam. Between the two presidential candidates, Macron might be the more insidious, trying to actively distort Islam and interfere in the freedom of conscience.

Le Pen, despite probably having a more negative reputation with Muslims (similar to Trump), is just old-fashioned rather than insidious. She would not likely try to interfere in and pervert other people's faith, even if her policies would be more directly confrontational with France’s Muslim community, with such absurd measures as fines for wearing headscarves. It is also noticeable that Macron is a zealous Israel-supporter, going as far as to label Israel critics as enemies of the Republic, a bizarre attack that strikes directly at the consciences of Muslims more than Le Pen has done.

Civilisation anxiety justified?

Regardless of the outcome of the presidential election, France will struggle to reconcile the consequences of its imperialism and its attempts to maintain a culturally uniform nation-state. This could eventually result in separatism and violence in decades to come.

France’s differences from Britain are that Britain is not a secular state, and Britain accepted its overseas people as distinct cultures, with little interest in assimilation, as there is no Britishness to assimilate into (all aspects of our identity, from food to flags and even the Union itself, are the cumulative imperial booty acquired by Norman conquerors, so there is no core Britishness to be anxious about, like the core Frenchness).

On 21 March, French President Emmanuel Macron was reported to have absurdly claimed that opposing Israel is treasonous, referring to "anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism" as "enemies of the Republic", according to France 24.

Macron's statement is unfortunate for him, if anyone of a reasonable mind is to read it, for a variety of reasons. For one thing, despite how stupid and evil it is, racism (and the specific variants of it, such as anti-Semitism) is absolutely not any form of treason. Racism is more likely to be a trait of people with staunch national loyalty than those who would become traitors, so even the seemingly good part of Macron's statement is factually incorrect. If you doubt me, consider whether virtually every national hero in French history is likely to have shared modern sensibilities that allow us to reject racism. Saying racists are enemies of France would be a drunken and illogical remark.

What country is Macron loyal to?

The especially bad part of Macron's reported statement is his own expression of intolerance toward the criticism of Israel (anti-Zionism). Here, he accidentally fails to expose any traitorous behaviour other than his own. Demanding some form of allegiance to a foreign government by condemning all criticism of it would make Macron himself the enemy of the Republic.

Even impolite, more objectionable criticisms of Israel, statements that Israel is an enemy and must be bombed, and so forth, would not be incompatible with being loyal to France. Those statements may be incredible irresponsible, and they could even be criminal, but being loyal to France is solely defined by one's relationship to France and not to other countries supported by Emmanuel Macron.

America forcing loyalty to Israel

What Macron was trying to do, and what other French politicians are likely trying to do, is something that has also been done in the United States and has been advocated in Germany by some lawmakers. In the United States, people are forced by law in some states and government bodies to pledge their allegiance to Israel. US Conservative politicians see supporting Israel at all costs as essential to America, and their blind fervour drives them to extreme hostility towards Muslims.

Muslims are unable to accept Al-Quds as the capital of a hostile country that undermines their rights, and their religion would require them to be anti-Zionist. Trying to criminalise belief and brand millions of Muslims as internal enemies is not only unjustified but may put the people doing this on the same moral footing as anti-Semites, specifically the 1930s anti-Semites who created the Nuremberg Laws.

The prevailing reactionary and liberal camps within the Western liberal democratic model of state are equally incapable of accepting Muslims, and the best display of this failure is in France.

The French decision to close the French Council of the Muslim Faith because of perceived undue foreign influence reflects a desire to create an alternative Islam acceptable to Western liberals. What Western countries want is a local sedated, liberal-friendly Islam that is okay with cartoons of Islam's Prophet and supportive of Western wars on Muslims.

Macron's Islam

What Western countries would prefer to see is a completely reinvented Islam with an edited and redacted holy book, to support their interests and only attack China and Russia at the behest of Western diplomats. This is consistent with prevailing political sentiments in the West, which emphasise eliminating unacceptable views by cancelling them and are not interested, in the slightest, in how dear such views are to people from other civilisations.

We are seeing what will culminate in the complete failure to construct a multiconfessional state along liberal lines in the West, even as the West's population declines and migrants from other cultures become essential to economic performance. The requirement that it must be okay to offend culture and faith will never be able to coexist with being welcoming to people from other cultures, no matter what desperate policies are pursued by countries like France.

Countries that want to rectify other cultures when offended by them, yet at the same time wanting freedom for themselves to offend such cultures, are pursuing a doomed model. There is no example of any multiconfessional state in history that was both defiantly liberal and accommodated very different religious communities successfully.

Multiculturalism can work, but not with liberalism

Multiculturalism can succeed, but must be done within strict constraints that preserve the autonomy of the cultures concerned and treat them with the utmost respect. France's desire to assimilate and make sure that every cultural change comes at the expense of other cultures rather than France's is a mistake, when France was the colonial power and France made the decision to govern members of other cultures. That comes at a cost, and France must pay it by allowing its own character to change as a result.

Neo-colonial France's arrogant domestic policy against Muslims is matched by its arrogant foreign policy against Mali, demanding this country adhere to its political values and model, although the real goal is to exploit the country's gold and uranium. However, cancelling Islam and declaring cultural superiority won't help France escape the consequences of its own decision to become a multicultural empire.

Although unthinkable from a historical perspective, it is likely that both Catholics and Muslims will become more politically active in Western countries and find common ground.

Inclusivity activists in the West, crusading against all forms of social exclusion or distinction everywhere, have gained more and more influence over government and academia. They are likely to collide, increasingly harshly, with all those who hold tradition dear.

It is only a matter of time before a renewed attempt to destroy the Roman Catholic Church begins to manifest in Western countries, this time facilitated by inclusivity-focused politics. The proponents will also implicitly demand Islam be destroyed, too, although they may try to defeat the Catholics first and dupe Muslims into helping them attack this first target.

Pope senses the problem

Pope Francis has made a number of denunciations to assert a firmer stance by the Roman Catholic Church against forces that may next seek to destroy its foundation. Calls for inclusivity at the expense of doctrine have been explicitly rejected by the Church. LGBT activists' calls have gone unheard. The Pope even reached out to explicitly condemn the EU for trying to diminish Christmas for the sake of inclusive language, showing the Church's frustration with cultural liberal campaigners and their influence.

The Pope has rejected "cancel culture", perhaps in recognition that the vindictiveness of modern-day cultural liberal reformers who topple statues is likely to result in some assault on the Church in the near future. Branding it as "one-track thinking", he stated, "any historical situation must be interpreted in accordance with a hermeneutics of that particular time." With the sleeping giant of the Roman Catholic Church arising to confront cultural liberalism, we may see an ever firmer stance being taken in many communities against it, as formerly quiet people emerge to defend their traditions.

Abrahamic religions to face massive pressure

Many ideas are central and non-negotiable in the three Arbahamic faiths. Catholics hold that men and women are distinct creations, and that there is no changing from one to another. Muslims hold a similar view at present.

There is no way to square Western cultural liberal views about inclusion with Catholic Christianity or Islam, yet Western campaigners and culture warriors have shown they will tolerate nothing encumbering their goal of inclusivity, including cultural and traditional barriers. The goal to rewrite the meaning of man and woman in the interests of inclusivity everywhere will probably mandate an attack on other languages and cultures beyond the West, because what is really intended is to change a concept itself.

Ultimately there will be attempts to rewrite Catholic and Islamic doctrine for the sake of inclusivity, causing a fundamental corruption. This will be unacceptable to both, prompting them to try to build an unmoving wall of social conservatism among voters in democratic countries to block all such change.

Huge social conservative backlash is inevitable

Muslims, while often apolitical or simply supporting the left, as is the case with the UK's Labour Party, are likely to seek out their own social conservative platforms within Western countries as soon as this controversy begins to take real shape. They are likely to find common ground with Christians, if the latter can set aside the absurdity of their islamophobia.

In countries such as the UK, Muslims may concentrate in a few alternative platforms such as the Workers Party of Britain, which espouses social conservatism alongside a number of typically left-wing positions. They will likely abandon all support for the Labour Party in time, especially if it continues to be driven by the likes of Sir Keir Starmer, who is deaf, dumb and blind to all the concerns of Muslims in the UK.

The gaffes of Labour in its failure to maintain Muslims votes were apparent when Starmer suggested a preference for India over the rights of the people of Kashmir, prompting condemnation by Muslims and frantic backpedalling by him. Muslims are unlikely to forget such betrayals or overlook the possible threat of dubious cultural liberalism to Islamic doctrine and life.

The result of all this is that a significant base is forming, not perhaps for George Galloway's idea of a socialism-infused migrant-friendly party but for a more staunch social conservative party with religious principles embedded in its core ideology. If managed properly, such a platform could not only secure the votes of all Muslims in Britain but even secure enough traditionalist Christian votes to become one of the largest parties in the UK. Of course, this is all speculative, and any number of new political forces and agendas could prevent such ties from ever forming.

What of Jews?

Of course, Judaism should be mentioned, too, although I am less informed to comment on this religion. With it being a much smaller religion with less command over any voter base, it will most likely be spared most of the turbulence caused by cultural liberalism, except in Israel itself, where orthodox Jews will face pressure from Israeli liberals.

Because ultra-orthodox Jews have a much higher birth rate, cultural liberal agendas in Israel could be doomed to fail and be reversed simply due to a large number of the population being against such ideas in the future.

An article at Foreign Policy last month conceded tearfully that the Houthis will prevail in Yemen. After half a decade, each defeat looks worse for the UN-recognised regime. Could the success of the revolutionaries trigger a domino effect, meaning regime change in Saudi Arabia?

A humiliating defeat for the Saudi-led coalition and the entrenchment of a revolutionary state in Yemen might encourage new forms of resistance to the Saudi monarchy. How significant would this result be, and could it threaten the Arab kingdom's downfall and transition to an Islamic republic?

Saudi Arabia certainly seems to regard what it calls Iranian expansionism (including its support for the Houthis) as an existential threat, likely because of the Islamic Republic of Iran's own origins in the ashes of a once-revered monarchy that resembled Saudi Arabia. But is there really a threat to the House of Saud, if they lose their war?

Forms of uprising

The worst threats for the House of Saud include a coup or ethnic-based uprisings in parts of Saudi Arabia disloyal to the regime. A renewed uprising in nearby Bahrain is also possible, just as the previous uprising reacted to international events, only to be crushed by foreign intervention.

Ethnic-based uprisings would occur in the country's Shia areas, and could derive support from Iran, Lebanese Hezbollah, Iraqi Shia groups, and a victorious Houthi movement in Yemen.

There is no way that Shia and Persian revolutionaries could dominate majority-Sunni Saudi Arabia. It is likely that Iran has no illusions of dominating the Arabian Peninsula in this way. Rather, any transformation or change of constitution would have to come at the initiative of the Arabs, and to serve the interests of Sunni Arabs. Otherwise, it is impossible.

Factors against an uprising

Uprisings typically require a total failure of economic performance, which, on the contrary, seems quite good in Saudi Arabia. The reliance on oil exports is sufficient to create affluence. This may not benefit most Saudis, but there are other factors like low taxation and benefits for the population that would make the people indifferent to a corrupt or despotic regime.

The scenario of ethnic-based uprisings also would entail a significant portion of the population, namely the Sunnis, siding with the regime in the event of such disturbances. Owing to the population being majority-Sunni, this means a strong ethnic component and a lack of general economic woe in an uprising would keep the regime in power.

Saudi Arabia is based on little other than the monarchy. A republic would be highly unstable, more like Egypt. In contrast with the republics, Arab kingdoms have generally been peaceful internally, with Jordan being another example.

A wise course is keeping the monarchy in the interests of stability and prosperity, even though support for the war in Yemen is unwise. Even if republican fervour grows in Saudi Arabia, it may be responsible to reject it.

The military coup

The problems with the other forms of uprising makes a coup the most likely kind to happen. The military failure in Yemen could be a significant contributor to this, as Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) was personally involved in directing the failed military efforts in Yemen. At least, this is the image we are given.

A Saudi coalition defeat in Yemen may reflect especially badly on MBS, and a coup could be even more likely if the conflict in fact persists and he refuses to end it. He is likely worried that his authority will be undermined by ending the conflict in failure, but it could be worse if it continues.

Saudi military leaders would be best placed to rule the country in the event of removal of monarchical rule. It would be as simple as forming a council for the defence of the nation and placing the former regime figures under arrest.

Following that hypothetical development, the ruling council could oversee the transition of the country to democracy. However, it is fraught with risk. The social and economic effects of removing monarchies are unpredictable. The new state could be stuck in a cycle of coups, dictators, violent uprisings and economic woes.

The purge

The most likely scenario is that Mohammed bin Salman himself will lead the revolution. He will clean house. In this scenario, he identifies those who failed in Yemen and those responsible for the war, and punishes them. He rejects the former Yemeni regime that he had been backing up in the war.

This option would ingratiate MBS with the Yemenis, allowing him to start over with the country and pose once again as a benevolent neighbour. Many in Yemen have come to hate him, and that is unlikely to change, but its effect on foreign relations can be subdued for practical benefit.

We already see MBS trying to start over with Iran, showing something of an acknowledgment that Saudi Arabia pursued the wrong course before. Even more reconciliation could already be secretly underway, but requires clever PR to prevent it looking like Saudi capitulation after their previous rhetoric. The Saudis are quite good with PR, and could do this easily.

Although it may seem like an extreme comparison, recall that the Japanese Emperor Hirohito was responsible for directing the Japanese war effort in the Second World War, even continuing to do so from a bunker. Yet, for all his involvement, his high status as a royal figure spared him from any consequences and he himself ended the war, ultimately prevailing over those who wished the war to continue. Although originally a warmongering figure, thanks to Allied mercy, Hirohito managed to prevail as the peacemaker when it mattered most and saved his country from total destruction.

I consider this to be the most likely change in Saudi Arabia if the war effort in Yemen ultimately fails. In short: MBS will be convinced to bring the end to the war, fire his advisers, and alter the nation's foreign policy position on Yemen as well as Lebanon and Iran. The wrath of Saudi Arabia, in the event of these developments, would be turned away from fellow Muslims and either subside entirely or be turned against Israeli occupiers in the Palestinian territories.

We have the example of Turkey already, which altered its confrontational approach toward Russia after purging foreign ministry officials in response to a failed coup.

What would change in Saudi Arabia mean?

With the status of Jerusalem in question, and the right of Muslims to worship at a holy place jeopardised, it is increasingly urgent for Saudi Arabia to change course and stand with other Muslim countries in protest against Israel.

When it comes to its foreign policy, Saudi Arabia is currently viewed with contempt by many Muslims due its betrayal of the Palestinians and its direction of all its military resources against fellow Muslims. An apathetic population, living off the country's oil wealth, is all that keeps the regime in power.

The best course for Saudi Arabia includes not just a more democratic system but partnership with Iran and Turkey in the region. As American power recedes in the Middle East, Muslims are destined to eventually take the resolution of the Jerusalem issue into their own hands.

Sound and fury last weekend in Liverpool took Britain by surprise. Almost immediately, it was labelled as a terrorist attack, although this had more to do with the method employed by the perpetrator rather than any kind of motive.

Terrorist groups such as ISIS and al-Qaeda have not chosen to take responsibility for inspiring the attack, in which a lone attacker detonated a bomb inside a taxi. This is likely due to two factors. One is that the attack failed so spectacularly, causing no casualties other than the person who carried it out. The second is the nature of the target. Targeting a women's hospital, with that hospital having no religious, ethnic or political significance, is of no interest even to the most violent terrorist organisations. At a glance, such a target suggests the perpetrator could have been driven by misogyny, possibly stirred by poor mental health or feelings of alienation rather than ideology.

According to reports, the perpetrator had a history of mental illness. This may put the designation of the incident as a terrorist attack into question, since it suggests that the attacker may have had no religious or political motive. As such, naming it as a terrorist attack could have accidentally focused the state's resources on stirring even more division, conflict and unrest rather than putting mental health in focus.

A way of life under attack?

To talk of the attack as being against our "way of life", as the British government has done, seems to have been in error. The attack was not against any way of life, but against life, in particular the life of the individual who did it. It was an attack by someone fed up with his own life. To talk of unity in the face of people trying to cause division, and to talk of preserving the way of life of the country, could simply be the wrong speech for the occasion and irrelevant to what happened.

The Liverpool attack attempt is something that would have happened even if the so-called war on terror was not taking place. It would have happened even if there were no different cultures cohabiting on our islands. This looks like a case of someone, mentally unstable and enraged at the world, seeking to commit suicide and take others with them. Unfortunately, such things are known to happen, even in countries and societies that are boring, homogenous and not embroiled in any kind of controversy. The perpetrators, enraged at everyone, often even target their own families.

Comparison with the Plymouth attack

Think back to the other recent attack to have disturbed Britain, which occurred in Plymouth. That was a case of a loner who snapped, and sought to take his rage out against the world, including a young child in his path. The acts are evil, as they would have been in Liverpool if the attacker succeeded, but the motive is not one that fits with what we know as terrorism. The motive is simply based on isolation and mental illness. We have a crowded, complicated world that gives rise to false expectations, shattered dreams and mental illness. Sometimes, people die because of it.

More disturbingly, it may be that the attack in Liverpool was designated as terrorism because the perpetrator was a Muslim and of Middle Eastern origin, whereas the Plymouth attacker was not. Yet, in both cases, mental illness played a role. It it seems very likely that both attacks have no political significance and only represent the perpetrators' rage at their own lives, made worse by the disruptions to social life caused by the pandemic.

Pages