On the 14th of December 2008 an Iraqi journalist, Muntazar al-Zaidi threw his shoes, one after the other, at outgoing US president Bush during a press conference in Baghdad, in full glare of the media. This incident immediately made global headlines and the video footage has been replayed repeatedly, becoming a firm favorite to watch on the Internet. Also, the neo-con fantasy to be greeted with garlands in Iraq after waging a war based on lies finally faced and badly failed the reality check.
Opinion over the action of 29 year old al-Zaidi, has been sharply divided. The majority of Arabs considered this
an act of heroism and bravery, reflecting their own bitter sentiments about the US aggression in Iraq and the established impotence of their own governments. Al-Zaidi’s brother said, "Millions of Iraqis or rather millions of the people of the world wish to do what Muntadhar did…Thank God he had the guts to do it and avenge the Iraqi people and the country from those who plunder it and have killed its people.” It is noteworthy that Muslims across the world while supporting al-Zaidi’s actions didn’t show concern about whether he was a Shia or a Sunni. If one was to believe British 
and American propaganda, this shouldn’t have been the case, as they have tried hard to build this sectarian divide.
But likewise there was vocal condemnation from some quarters and understandably from the US-backed Iraqi government. As one local Iraqi stated, "I deem it unnecessary. This thing is unjustifiable. It is an incorrect style. We are not violent. One can voice his opinion in other ways,"
Navigating through this sharp divide, one particular theme emerged that caught my attention and which I want to focus on. This theme was echoed by Bush himself in the immediate aftermath of the shoe-attack, when asked by a reporter, he mentioned that this was freedom of expression.
This statement has been packaged by quite a few to demonstrate the ‘moral dominance’ of capitalism over other ways of life, by posing questions such as: “just imagine what would have happened to the shoe-thrower under the Saddam regime?” or, “would it have been possible in first place that someone would dare throw his shoes on dictators like Saddam, Abdullah or Musharraf in their respective countries?”
These sorts of questions need serious scrutiny as otherwise people will jump to the fallacious conclusion that western capitalism and the US-led invasion has brought some good, which is freedom of expression.
I would like to argue from three different angles, challenging this lie of the superiority of western capitalism and secular democracies.
1. The first point is that whenever Muslims want to evaluate a system it needs to be done on the basis of Islam and therefore the comparison should be between capitalism and Islam, not capitalism and dictatorship, monarchy or oligarchy. If you just try to look for something worse than what you are evaluating, you will always find it and therefore it is a futile exercise giving us no reasonable evaluation or judgment. If we were to compare the state of affairs about freedom of expression to account the ruler in Islam, we would learn that Islam in this case, as in all other domains of life, is the bench mark for justice and fairness. Just to quote one example from many to show how the prophet of Allah (saw) would react to accountability and criticism by his companions, the Sahaba (ra). In the battle of Badr, when the Prophet (saw) was straightening the ranks of the Muslim army, he was walking in front of them with a wooden stick in his hand. Sawwad bin Ghuzzaiya, one of the Sahaba was a step ahead of the others and so the Prophet (saw) pushed him in his stomach with the wooden stick. Upon this Sawwad (ra) said, “Oh Messenger of Allah, you have hurt me and I want to get even with you”. Just imagine the other Sahaba hearing that someone wants to get even with the Prophet of Allah! But the Prophet very calmly said, “Go ahead and he uncovered his stomach”. Sawwad (ra) jumped on the Prophet, hugged him and kissed his stomach. The Prophet asked Sawwad (ra) “Oh Sawwad, why did you do that?” He replied, “You see what we are going to face, and this might be the last day in my life and so I wanted the last moments in my life to be my skin touching yours”.
2. The second point is that when we compare the situation today with the one which prevailed under dictators like Saddam or still prevails under the Arab Monarchies, how can we forget the very fact that these monarchies were/are in reality the puppet regimes of the Western colonialists, be it the British or the Americans? This means that all the cruelties carried out by the dictators were at least sanctioned by their Western masters and therefore they share the blame equally.
3. The third and foremost point that needs to be understood is the deceitful cleverness which this Western capitalist system employs. It robs its subjects from their land, resources, lives, honor and deen, but still manages that they cherish the ‘freedom of expression’ which they are left with! What is the point in having the right to express all your anger, even if it is with throwing shoes at the spearhead of who brought all this evil, when you are not left with any other choice and are not able to resist their occupation and domination? All the widows and orphans of Iraq, the inmates of Abu Gharib, the young and old bereaved of their family members have the right to cry, lament and wail, so should we be cherishing that as well?
Such incidents show the deceptive but influential nature of western propaganda. It is imperative that Muslims do not allow anyone to pull the wool over their eyes such that they become easy prey. Rather deeper scrutiny of these events, linked to the wider political landscape need to be benchmarked and evaluated within the framework of Islam.
Likewise, Muslims should feel a sense of shame – that given the all the armies, weapons, and resources that we have at our disposal, all we can muster is admiration for a shoe-thrower. This speaks volumes about the impotence and treachery of the rulers that blot the Muslim lands.
Muhammad (saw) said, ‘Every traitor will have a flag on the Last Day. And his flag will be raised according to his level of treachery. The traitor of traitors is the ruler who betrays his people.’
Opinion over the action of 29 year old al-Zaidi, has been sharply divided. The majority of Arabs considered this
an act of heroism and bravery, reflecting their own bitter sentiments about the US aggression in Iraq and the established impotence of their own governments. Al-Zaidi’s brother said, "Millions of Iraqis or rather millions of the people of the world wish to do what Muntadhar did…Thank God he had the guts to do it and avenge the Iraqi people and the country from those who plunder it and have killed its people.” It is noteworthy that Muslims across the world while supporting al-Zaidi’s actions didn’t show concern about whether he was a Shia or a Sunni. If one was to believe British and American propaganda, this shouldn’t have been the case, as they have tried hard to build this sectarian divide.But likewise there was vocal condemnation from some quarters and understandably from the US-backed Iraqi government. As one local Iraqi stated, "I deem it unnecessary. This thing is unjustifiable. It is an incorrect style. We are not violent. One can voice his opinion in other ways,"
Navigating through this sharp divide, one particular theme emerged that caught my attention and which I want to focus on. This theme was echoed by Bush himself in the immediate aftermath of the shoe-attack, when asked by a reporter, he mentioned that this was freedom of expression.
This statement has been packaged by quite a few to demonstrate the ‘moral dominance’ of capitalism over other ways of life, by posing questions such as: “just imagine what would have happened to the shoe-thrower under the Saddam regime?” or, “would it have been possible in first place that someone would dare throw his shoes on dictators like Saddam, Abdullah or Musharraf in their respective countries?”
These sorts of questions need serious scrutiny as otherwise people will jump to the fallacious conclusion that western capitalism and the US-led invasion has brought some good, which is freedom of expression.
I would like to argue from three different angles, challenging this lie of the superiority of western capitalism and secular democracies.
1. The first point is that whenever Muslims want to evaluate a system it needs to be done on the basis of Islam and therefore the comparison should be between capitalism and Islam, not capitalism and dictatorship, monarchy or oligarchy. If you just try to look for something worse than what you are evaluating, you will always find it and therefore it is a futile exercise giving us no reasonable evaluation or judgment. If we were to compare the state of affairs about freedom of expression to account the ruler in Islam, we would learn that Islam in this case, as in all other domains of life, is the bench mark for justice and fairness. Just to quote one example from many to show how the prophet of Allah (saw) would react to accountability and criticism by his companions, the Sahaba (ra). In the battle of Badr, when the Prophet (saw) was straightening the ranks of the Muslim army, he was walking in front of them with a wooden stick in his hand. Sawwad bin Ghuzzaiya, one of the Sahaba was a step ahead of the others and so the Prophet (saw) pushed him in his stomach with the wooden stick. Upon this Sawwad (ra) said, “Oh Messenger of Allah, you have hurt me and I want to get even with you”. Just imagine the other Sahaba hearing that someone wants to get even with the Prophet of Allah! But the Prophet very calmly said, “Go ahead and he uncovered his stomach”. Sawwad (ra) jumped on the Prophet, hugged him and kissed his stomach. The Prophet asked Sawwad (ra) “Oh Sawwad, why did you do that?” He replied, “You see what we are going to face, and this might be the last day in my life and so I wanted the last moments in my life to be my skin touching yours”.
2. The second point is that when we compare the situation today with the one which prevailed under dictators like Saddam or still prevails under the Arab Monarchies, how can we forget the very fact that these monarchies were/are in reality the puppet regimes of the Western colonialists, be it the British or the Americans? This means that all the cruelties carried out by the dictators were at least sanctioned by their Western masters and therefore they share the blame equally.
3. The third and foremost point that needs to be understood is the deceitful cleverness which this Western capitalist system employs. It robs its subjects from their land, resources, lives, honor and deen, but still manages that they cherish the ‘freedom of expression’ which they are left with! What is the point in having the right to express all your anger, even if it is with throwing shoes at the spearhead of who brought all this evil, when you are not left with any other choice and are not able to resist their occupation and domination? All the widows and orphans of Iraq, the inmates of Abu Gharib, the young and old bereaved of their family members have the right to cry, lament and wail, so should we be cherishing that as well?
Such incidents show the deceptive but influential nature of western propaganda. It is imperative that Muslims do not allow anyone to pull the wool over their eyes such that they become easy prey. Rather deeper scrutiny of these events, linked to the wider political landscape need to be benchmarked and evaluated within the framework of Islam.
Likewise, Muslims should feel a sense of shame – that given the all the armies, weapons, and resources that we have at our disposal, all we can muster is admiration for a shoe-thrower. This speaks volumes about the impotence and treachery of the rulers that blot the Muslim lands.
Muhammad (saw) said, ‘Every traitor will have a flag on the Last Day. And his flag will be raised according to his level of treachery. The traitor of traitors is the ruler who betrays his people.’
Posts
I would like to comment on your three pronged response.
ReplyDelete1. It is always interesting that muslims want us to compare an abstract ideal to the reality of western thought and action. Is this because islam, in its romanticised version, has no reality?
It seems patently easy to compare a working system with all its flaws and warts to an idea that sounds utopian and without faults. If islam is superior and right then where is the proof? Ideas are but ideas without implementation. It seems to me that muslims, by their very rejection of any such implementation, have rejected the veracity of any of your claims.
Alternativly if you want to compare muslim systems to western ones then feel free to pick and choose any of the dozens that abound across the muslim world. If you fail to see the hypocrisy of your claims then there isnt much that you do see.
2. It never cease to amaze me how muslims in general, and Arabs in particular claim every ill that befalls them is a consequence of their colonial past and through no fault of their own. If you folk feel that you are so easily manipluated and are of such inferior stock as to not have command over your own destiny then what right do you have to such destiny? Either 'man up' and take responsibility for your own actions and inactions or confess to the fact that you cannot do so and do not deserve the right to do so. It would be prudent to set your own house in order before you start blaming your neighbour for your internal discord.The fact that we, in the west, will deal with whoever seems to be leading you is only practical and not an overwhelming endorsement. If you want competent leadership then you need to provide it. Why should we be responsible for your failings in this regard?
3.It is interesting how suddenly an 'off the cuff remark' by a US president after having been physically assaulted, is presented as 'decitful cleverness of the western system'. All that an objective reader can see here is the perverted lens that is distorting your view of reality. The simple truth is that muslims do not want islam. If they had wanted islam as a system of government it would exist in at last one country. Since it doesnt it is clear to any objective observer that islam is not something that is important enough as a system to a majority of muslims. I would harass to guess that most muslims arent even familiar enough with islam to know what it exactl entails given the fact that a majority of muslims have trouble reading or writing even their own names.....
An excellent analysis. Very comprehensive and leaves nothing to be said. It just raises the point that Muslims should be the ones who think and respond to situations rationally instead of the knee jerk reactions that have become a norm.
ReplyDeleteThe whole idea of "freedom of expression" is a facade that is exposed the moment anyone in these "free economies" utters a single word against their ideologies and is readily branded as a terrorist, extremist or a radical.
[on a side note, who is to say no one threw a shoe at Saddam. Unlike today, there was no news coverage back then ... but many people defied Saddam throughout his rule. Were it the case that freedom of expression liberates defiance, one would probably see hundreds of shoe throwers instead of one. The US isn't beyond bombing or gassing dissenting masses ... they only don't do it under the glare of the media. When they can get away with it, you get Falluja and Abu-Gharaib]
@Anonymous:
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comments. There seems to be some misunderstanding about what this post meant to address and what not. It also seems that you have either forgotten or are not aware of the close to 1000 years of Islam's rule on the two thirds of the then known World. Anyhow, let me respond to your points one by one.
1. No, when we refer back to Islam, its not mere fantasy, rather its to the rule of Islam established by the Prophet of Allah, and carried on by the Caliphs, specially the first four known to be the rightly guided. This should have been clear from the example itself, which was from the life of the Prophet.
2. I admit that this post has pointed out something relating to the West, but why do you take that to mean that there is no fault in Muslims which I would ever point out? The mere fact that this blog is addressing Muslims should be proof enough that its an attempt to 'man up' as you say.
3. If the remark by Bush was off the cuff be it so, but is also the whole concept of freedom of expression also off the cuff? Was the discussion held on CNN on this very topic and on various forums also off the cuff? Let me make it even more simple, don't you cherish the Western concept of freedom of expression? If you do, you would also see the apparent, but deceitful link between this concept and the act of al-Zaidi. I only tried to explain the shallowness of this concept via one recent incident.
I hope this clarifies your points.
I would like to respond to Anonymous Commentator very briefly, with references to the points he has made:
ReplyDelete1. The notion of an Islamic State or system is not a romanticized fairy tale. It is system that existed for over 1200 years spanning land from Malaysia to the borders of your current day Austria and France. It was a place of higher learning and social justice ... incidently, a place where European Jews took shelter to protect themselves against Anti-Semitic forces prevalent in Europe, amongst other things. I think THIS system has a more successful trial period than the 100 year old capitalistic democracy that western economists are trying to make sense of these days. [READ History]
2 - 3. If indeed and in fact the Muslim population is so reluctant regarding Islamic rule, why is the US so actively engaged to subvert and sabotage any efforts of islamization in Muslim dominated lands? As a student of History, can you ever deny that Saddam was a puppet of the west, or Mubarak, the Sheiks and Musharraf et all are supported and backed by the west.
A case in point to highlight western hypocrisy, when Hamas won the elections by popular DEMOCRATIC vote in Palestine, the west chose to punish them. When Islamic Party came to power after DEMOCRATIC elections in Algeria ... and the west backed Military toppled the government, the Democracy loving US of A hailed it as a great moment in Arab history. Ditto Pakistan, Ditto Egypt.
Is our leadership unable to lead due to their inaptitude ... probably so. But to deny that the west is actively playing a role in it is hilarious. You should read papers published by American think tanks like RAND, IISS or IPCS or any other where they themselves blatantly claim that they are in an all out political war to stop the Islamization of Muslim lands.
Under these realities, it is quite ironic that the west would come in and teach us about "Freedom" while they themselves are the perpetators of the worst crimes against "Freedom" around the world themselves.
may allah reward you for all your efforts.keep it up.
ReplyDelete