“Hypocrisy is an inherent part of the disbelievers (infidels) way of life”
by Yamin Zakaria
The recent ban imposed upon the Muslim women in France from wearing the Islamic scarf (Hijab) gives credence to the above opinion held by many Muslims. It was not too long ago that the Taliban were demonised for not giving a choice to the women of Afghanistan regarding the Islamic scarf, but is it not the same choice now being denied by Chirac? France can be excused but not the Taliban! The same principle is applied by the other member nations (US, UK and Israel) of the Judeo-Christian civilisation as they conduct their brutal aggression and subsequent colonisation under the umbrella of ‘defence’ and ‘freedom’. Isn’t it simply hypocritical to wage an unprovoked war, killing indiscriminately and causing immense destruction in the name of bringing ‘freedom’? What can the dead in Iraq do with their ‘freedom’? What use is ‘freedom’ to those, whose loved ones have been killed, property destroyed, and the wealth of their nation looted? They are not the recipients of ‘freedom’ but the victims of the ‘freedom’ fundamentalists, who are intoxicated with imperial arrogance, fanaticism and intolerance.
The issue of Guantanamo Bay is another example of this same hypocrisy of the ‘freedom’ fanatics lecturing the world about human rights, whilst violating the same at will. Then we had the recent charade of finding WMD in Iraq, whilst existing in abundance in their own backyard, as they are the creators and the largest producers of these types of weapons. Hence, no surprise, that the only WMD found in Iraq were those used by the marauding invaders. The US then ripped open Iraq’s economy, without any legitimate authority, in a manner that it would not do to its own economy. One can go on producing an endless list of the duplicity emanating from these ‘freedom’ fanatics. However, it is worth a closer analysis of this notion of ‘freedom’, as Bush and Blair have been using it incessantly since 9/11, without substantiating its meaning.
In the current political context, the inference from the linguistic meaning of the word is simply “self-rule”, and therefore ‘freedom’ dictates that the nation must decide of its own free will as to how it should govern itself. Which implies that ‘freedom’ must be established from within rather than imposed by a foreign army. The only exception to this, is when a nation under occupation invites some third party to aid them in their pursuit for liberation, as an example, the French under the Nazis invited the Allied forces to help them liberate their country.
The ‘freedom’ zealots have a different approach to this matter. According to the dynamic duo (Bush and Blair) ‘freedom’ extremists, absence of ‘freedom’ as interpreted by them, legitimises its enforcement, even by the use of force. It does not matter, whether it is Gotham City or Baghdad, you must have it. Of course, “enforcing freedom” is a self-contradictory notion, since enforcing denies one the freedom of choice, and freedom necessitates the absence of an external (foreign) enforcing authority! So the motto is, although ‘freedom’ offers choices, however, there is no choice on the issue of governing by the notion of ‘freedom’ as interpreted by the ‘freedom’ fanatics, regardless of the opinion of the masses. Therefore, legitimacy of ‘freedom’ has to be certified by the High Priests of ‘freedom’ fundamentalism. For sure, the High Priests will not issue the certification, until the government selected complies with their interests. Perhaps, this is why there has been no free election in Iraq to date, as the early signs indicated that the Iraqis prefer an independent Islamic form of government. It is for the same reason that the West kept silent, and indirectly assisted the Algerian government to suspend the election, when the Islamic party (FIS) was clearly poised to win.
To a layperson, ‘freedom’ may simply mean, the lack of restraint. Restrictions are usually imposed by the state and society, manifested in the laws and regulations. Hence does ‘freedom’ imply a lawless society, total anarchy, like the jungle? As primitive society progresses towards a modern urbanised democratic society, its laws and regulations grow and consequently diminish ‘freedom’. Hence, in the pursuit of ‘freedom’, should societies become more primitive, i.e. lawless? In some respects, societies have become more primitive over the years as they try to attain greater ‘freedom’. The sexual relationship is an example, the traditional constraint of marriage, ethics and morality are being eroded. The youths in the clubs and the beach parties fornicate in public without any inhibition, bringing them closer to the conduct of animals in the jungle that are totally free.
The scholars of ‘freedom’ fundamentalism acknowledge that order and stability is a prerequisite for human survival, and absolute freedom results in chaos. Therefore, they define ‘freedom’ as being subjected to the laws and values imposed by the society, which is subjective as it emanates from certain beliefs, local customs and traditions. Hence the notion of ‘freedom’ is subjective! So who is then to judge, which is a free society and which is not? As an example, many Western societies allow same sex marriage but prohibit polygamy and view it with disdain. Why is the former an endorsement of ‘freedom’ but the latter is not? Despite this, the ‘freedom’ zealots will often attempt to portray it as an absolute and universal concept, transcending all civilisations, often inferring from its linguistic meaning, which has no reality except through the lawless jungle. For the self appointed High Priests of ‘freedom’ fundamentalism, they assume to have a monopoly over its meaning and implementation.
Therefore let us have a cursory examination of ‘freedom’ as implemented by the ‘freedom’ fundamentalists.
The embodiment of ‘freedom’ is proclaimed in the system of Democracy. In theory, the masses exercise their free will to select the ruling authority that would be representative of their interests. They are supposed to be the servants of the masses, rather than their masters.
The first question that arises, is whether the notion of majority rule is inherently correct? Did not Adolf Hitler have the majority of the German population behind him? Secondly, how does one prevent the majority from becoming a dictatorship, which suppresses the ‘freedom’ of the minority? What if, the majority in France decided to close down all the Mosques, prohibit Islamic marriages, Islamic slaughtering, Islamic names, and build Gas chambers for the disobedient Muslims, would that be in line with spirit of ‘freedom’? If legislation is passed to protect the minority, it is the same majority that can undo the legislation by passing newer legislation and amendments.
In reality, almost all the democratically elected governments are voted into power by the largest minority of the total eligible voting population. George Bush certainly did not get the majority vote in Florida, as the election was rigged!
Every society by its nature is composed of various competing groups. Naturally the group with the greatest power and wealth will have the largest voice. Taking the US as an example, is it the large multinationals with their huge party ‘donations’ or the thousand of impoverished voters from the Afro-American or Hispanic community who have more influence? Hence, it is not votes but dollars that exert real sway upon the Congress and Senate.
So, the ‘freedom’ of choice exercised by the masses in elections, is overwhelmingly not represented by the democratic government, but it is the weight of money that is represented. Hence, after the elections, the majority of political ‘representatives’ are only interested in serving their ‘donors’.
The notion of ‘freedom’ is manifested in the economic model of the “free market”. As mentioned above, society is heterogeneous. That usually results in the domination of a few companies in the market (domestic and international), distorting the paradigm severely. This is expected, as ‘freedom’ implies rule of the jungle, “survival of the fittest”, hence the strongest members will naturally dominate. It may be efficient at first but certainly not fair to the weaker members of society. Given time, that efficiency will erode as the competition diminishes and monopolies and oligopolies emerge as a result.
In the international arena free market economics is never practiced in the manner it is preached by the US or Europe. Just examine the subsidies given to their domestic industries and the import tariffs imposed on foreign imports. The recent summit at Cancun exposed the inherent greed of these Capitalist nations, as they sought to open up the third world markets in a manner not to generate free trade, but to exploit them and their natural resources. The dictation by the various international institutions (IMF, WTO, WB etc) to the African and other third world nations reflects the same policies.
The philosophy of the free market is profit before ‘freedom’ (or blood). When the Iraqi civilians were being murdered, TV commentary focused upon the effectiveness of the weapons. Is it the Scud or the Patriot? Is it the Abram tank or the Apache or the Black Hawk that has been most effective? It was no coincidence, that immediately after the first Gulf War, a huge arms exhibition was held in France.
Therefore, in the name of economic freedom, it is the majority that is denied their share of the wealth, hence denial of their economic power (‘freedom’).
By applying the principal of “judging the tree by its fruits” is perhaps the most effective way of examining the notion of ‘freedom’. Have the men and women under the spell of ‘freedom’ attained greater tranquillity and happiness? If so, why are the divorce rates, single parent families, domestic violence, child abuse, suicide rate, drug addiction, crime, and the use of anti-depressant drugs constantly on the rise? The direct consequence of ‘freedom’ has been the erosion of traditional religious family values, leading to a rise in sexual promiscuity. The boundaries of sexual freedom are pushed constantly as all sorts of sexual perversions become the norm. So, is this what Bush and Blair desire for our future generation?
Then comes the flag of “women’s rights”, which is often measured by the removal of their clothes, rather than looking at health, education and security. Is this is why the lone Afghan woman was paraded almost naked as a symbol of liberation, whilst those who desire to wear modest clothing are being forced to remove it (Re: recent event in France)?
We also see the bizarre duplicity in the Western attitude towards Islam and the Muslims. As an example, they taunt the Muslims about the vice of polygamy and the inherent goodness of monogamy, but yet, one would be hard pressed to find someone who is truly monogamous in their society, even amongst their leaders e.g. Bill Clinton, Mitterrand, John Major et al. Why is Polygamous marriage a vice, whereas mass participation in the form of orgies, including homosexual activities, are an endorsement of freedom?
The other category of the ‘freedom’ fanatics are ironically intolerant and/or intellectually inept to address any criticism(s), thus they often resort to racist language and personal attacks. Unfortunately some of the self-appointed leaders of the migrant communities have also adopted the same arguments, blinded by their material success and comforts in the West. The argument presented is simple, “If you don’t like it here, then leave.” Is this not a form of chastisment for expressing their opinion under the principal of ‘free speech’? Why is it that the people who wave the flag of ‘freedom’ are trying to stifle the critics or dissidents by not addressing the issues and asking them to leave the country? This type of behaviour and reasoning is tantamount to an admittance of intellectual cowardice and ineptitude. Of course, these arguments are only posed to those who belong to the migrant communities, even if they are born in the country, especially if they have a non-European origin; otherwise they are simply classified as dissidents. As an example, no one has ever asked the eminent dissident, Noam Chomsky, to migrate from the US. In any case, opinions of this type have a number of inherent contradictions and/or flaws.
a) The notion of a ‘free’ society means the ability to tolerate diverse and opposing views. The very existence of criticism gives substantial credibility to the claim of having a ‘free’ society. Otherwise what is the meaning of ‘freedom’ when opposing opinions expressed are not tolerated and threats are issued to expel them?
b) Those expressing criticism should be viewed as decent law abiding citizens exercising their rights. The ruling elites are the representatives, and hence they must find a way of representing the dissident views, rather then attempt to silence them.
c) Even if the dissident views emanate from the economic migrants, does that automatically mean that they have no right to voice their opinion? Do they not have the right to participate as citizens and alter society in accordance to their viewpoint? Shouldn’t ‘freedom’ itself be the arbiter, in letting the masses decide on the strongest opinion? Isn’t that what ‘free’ thinking is all about? Let the people argue and prove their case.
d) Finally where should many of these migrant settlers go? If the argument is that they oppose ‘freedom’, ‘dictatorship’, ‘secularism’, etc then there is no real choice of settling in anywhere else in the world.
Just examining the track record of the ‘freedom’ fanatics, they have committed genocide and uprooted nations in the name of ‘freedom’ over the last two to three hundred years. The entire notion of ‘freedom’ is built upon deceit and lies. Just examine the layers of deception in fabricating the recent war on Iraq. Therefore it is not the nascent Islamic ‘fundamentalism’, but the ‘freedom’ fundamentalism that poses the greatest threat to the peace and security in the world.
Extracted 01/05/04 from CDLR Islamic Board