Home

Home

The Northern Alliance of Islam 

Abid Ullah Jan 

A barrage of we-are-left-alone sounding articles[1][1] by complaining Muslims shows that the US has come a long way from the period when it needed talking heads among Muslim masses. Priority has now been shifted from the heads that talk to the heads that could roll for the US. Its time to form the Northern Alliance of Islam. 

To qualify for this Alliance, expectation bar goes up for “moderate” Muslims as the moral bar comes down for the US and its Allies. To remain accommodated, “moderates” have to move one step further — to become ultra-moderate — to, at least, intensify intellectual horror if not possible to join the physical horrors of imperial onslaughts and occupations. Let us see how. 

In comments on one of Daniel Pipes articles, “Know thy Terrorists,” one of the potential ultra-moderate Muslim sets a new standard for his coleagues: “I have studied Islamic scriptures and history. I will not deny that the Quran promotes violence against non Muslims, and that history proves it. I feel that it is stupid to deny, lie, justify or defend something which is not acceptable by the standards of today's civilized world and human rights.”[2][2] 

Further raising the bar, Lynn Provencio summarised the expectations: “If moderate, mainstream Muslims actually disagree strongly with the actions and opinions of militant Muslims…, they would be wise to … even help apprehend them… they should show it by both words and actions, or they will certainly be grouped with the extremists.”[3][3] 

Role models of ultra-moderates are being provided at enticing web sites such as http://www.religioustolerance.org/reac_ter16.htm, http://rationalthinking.humanists.net/wean_from_islam.htm, and http://main.faithfreedom.org/index.htm. In the meanwhile, “moderates” are incessantly pleading the US to “find ways to bolster [their] credibility.”[4][4] One wonders: What do they need from US for credibility? Bombs or dollars, as there is not much left in its moral stock.

In fact, “moderate” Muslims have really nothing new to offer. From Osama bin Laden to Khalid Abul Fadl, every Muslim believes in the same basics of Islam. Like many other Muslims, busy in exploiting weaknesses of Western systems — from immigration to social welfare, etc. — moderate Muslims are doing nothing other than deepening the self-developed misunderstandings to take advantage of the US imperial instinct and Islam-phobia. The little misunderstandings among Muslims can be corrected through dialogue and debate. However, it is possible only if some Muslims set aside their personal benefits and stop ignoring the reality. 

Exaggerated Differences 

Muslim “moderates,” for instance, argue that Islamic theologians are against pluralism and worldly knowledge. In fact, Muslims have yet to see a single Muslim in any position who opposes worldly knowledge or pluralism. It is argued that revenge, “rather than willingness to compromise or submit to the victors, is the traditional response of theologically inclined Muslims to the defeat of Muslim armies.”[5][5] Mulla Umer and Saddam Hussein are the two differently portrayed Muslims. Note response of these different individuals to the US aggression. Note the concessions they offered and the compromises they made to avoid the US wrath. Did anything work? 

Look at the collective Arab concessions to Israel, from Land to recognition, since 1990. Did anything work? Did US compromise for a single month after September 11? There is nothing left for compromise other than the left-over Muslim identity? And when it becomes the target of aggression, moderatism does not remain an acceptable commodity? 

If some of us try to describe resistance to US imperialism as a battle of “Islamists,” resemble it to “jihad against British rule,” and conclude that this is “fundamentalist interpretation of Islam”;[6][6] he is mistaken. This is not an interpretation of Islam alone – this is simply a resistance to occupation which even non-Muslim nations have successfully carried. Such an argument doesn’t justify or confirm divisions among Muslims. With or without Islam, the US has to face this resistance. 

For the benefits of acceptability, some Muslims are busy in highlighting differences in interpretation of Islam and proving the rest extremists. They exaggerate the “serious problem” the West faces due to “swelling ranks of fundamentalists.” The wannabe advisors to the US seem more worried for the West than the West itself. They are busy calculating recruitment pool for Al-Qaeda than studying the reasons for its existence. Instead of honestly assessing the need of US intervention in the heart of Islamic world, they suggest how to make this intervention effective. 

Muslim “moderates” now naively complain, “moderation in the Islamic world might turn out to be the most significant casualty of this war,” and American “dream of helping Muslims overcome their fear of modernity will then remain unfulfilled.”[7][7] It is, as if they do not know it has never been the US objective. Despite such complains they seem far away from realization that the objective has been to divide and deal each “group” separately. Shiites watching slaughter of Deobandis; they in turn watching extermination of Wahabbis; so on so forth and “moderates” overseeing them all would not lead to any modernity but to the ultimate decimation of the core of Islam. 

 “Moderates” have clearly admitted that the war on Iraq was not provoked by an immediate casus belli. The US had no broad international support. Weapons of mass destruction were not found in Iraq. Instead they were used by the US and UK. That there have been outright lies on all types of western so-called mainstream media. It has been admitted that key segments of the Western media allowed themselves to be inducted into the psychological operations of the US-British military effort. Despite these admissions, “moderates” complain: “It is no longer easy for Muslim modernists to praise the West’s moral purpose.”[8][8] Please note carefully. “It is no longer easy” means they would still advocate and “praise” the US cause and “moral purpose” but it would be “no longer easy.” It means there is still no realization that the war on Muslim countries is not for any moral ideals. 

“Moderates” believe: “Even at their worst, the US and Britain represent far greater adherence to norms of civility than Iraq’s Baathist regime has done in its entire history.”[9][9] A realistic historical comparison would bitterly fail this argument. Moreover, the worst of Anglo-American alliance has yet to come. Rejectionists of this reality would believe it when they see it, just as they are describing the horrors of Iraq saga now — a reality which they couldn’t foresee a few months ago.  

Undermining the rest of Muslims 

It is not that the rest of Muslims believe in something weird than the “moderates.” All the Muslims are “reflective, self-critical, pro-democracy and human-rights.”[10][10] This distinction doesn’t go to “moderates” alone. Under the influence of propaganda, it has been assumed by the Western public that only the self-proclaimed “moderate” Muslims “pursue peace,” or “do not intend to promulgate their faith by force, and they can respect the existence of non-Muslim entities, including countries and religions.” [11][11]  

Some implicit and explicit statements by “moderates” have led the western analysts to believe that this type of Muslims “really do reject the Koranic commands of violence toward non-believers, the value of actual holy war, the promise of immediate elevation to paradise for those who die in holy war, and the preference of killing a non-believer rather than converting him (a convert is considered untrustworthy).” These Muslims are believed to “follow their religious leaders' reinterpretation of the Koran.”[12][12] What “moderates” consider the modern Ijthihad — that anyone without any thorough study of Islamic literature and background can do — is reinterpretation to the deluded non-Muslims. 

Even if “moderate” Muslims do not believe so, they have to now because this is what they are expected. The qualification bar is constantly being raised for them. They are expected to listen to “the claims of the gospel,” abandon “the original meaning of scriptures and the historical heritage.” Muslims “moderates” appeal for support and the supporters think: “We should take advantage[of these moderates].” [13][13]   

In the light of above mentioned expectations from “moderate” Muslims, no amount of playing with words and justification for modern interpretation of Islam can help serve the purpose of “moderates.” It is useless to argue that the difference between “moderate” and “extremist” Muslims is in their methodological orientation and in the primordial normative preferences which shape their interpretation of Islam. They are expected not to interpret but to reinterpret Qur’an and reject or accept as per the new expectations.  

As declared by “moderates,” we have yet to hear from the mouth of any “extremist” Muslim that military “Jihad is the first option and Ijthihad is not an option at all.”[14][14] There is no difference in how Muslims from Osama bin Laden to Karim Soroush aspire for a society based on mutual dignity and respect. Everyone agrees that Islam reject the use of indiscriminate violence to achieve political ends. 

The difference is in how we define “militants.” The problem is not that other Muslims do not reject the indiscriminate violence to achieve political ends; it is that they reject it both from the Muslims as well as from the war mongers sitting in Western capitals. Whereas “moderates” are expected to do one job: criticize such elements among Muslims but support and justify US actions in places such as Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere. Just as a leading “moderates” admit that they would still “praise” the US idealism but it would “no longer be easy.”

Stubborn denial of reality 

In a bid to be more acceptable, “moderates” are setting some mind boggling standards both for the rest of Muslims and non-Muslims. For example, it really becomes a matter of shame that non-Muslim reporters and analysts have dried up their pens and non-Muslim activist have sacrificed their lives for the just cause of the Palestinians but “moderate” Muslims, such as Muqtadir Khan, believe:  

1.      Allah, through the Qur'an, tells Muslims to forgive injustices that Jews and Christians commit against Muslims [in other words accept oppression — a formula, inapplicable to Iraqis or Afghans to let them live without the much vaunted liberation]. 

2.      The Israeli occupation of Palestine is "perhaps central to Muslim grievance against the West." Perhaps means, “moderates” are still doubtful. 

3.      The Israeli government treats its one million Arab citizens "with greater respect and dignity than most Arab nations treat their citizens."^[15][15]  

It means, there is no need to talk about the suffering Palestinians. Such comments are so wide of the mark and so irrelevant to the ground reality that even non-Muslims, who spent their lives for alleviating suffering of the Palestinians, will feel ashamed to read.  

If Palestinians are considered Militants, they have been forced into a situation to act like that. If the US could kill 12,000 Afghans without a shred of evidence of their involvement in 9/11 incident, Palestinian are justified in their struggle in the situation imposed on them since decades. Resistance against any illegal occupation and repression is as justified as was resistance against Soviet occupation of Afghanistan or British occupation of the US. Victimising Islam and its sources for personal advantages would bring no peace to the world.  

Conclusion: Beware of the Northern Alliance of Islam 

The alliance of moderate Muslims is not only undermining Islam but also posing a direct threat to peace and security in the Western world. Vested interests are promoting such exploiters of the Western fear of Islam. The US war on Afghanistan and now Iraq is as much for oil and other resources as it is for preventing “extremists” taking power in the Muslim world.  

The manipulators of “Islamic threat” have raised concerns over Islamic movements with the apprehension that “extremists” will come into power with an anti-US orientation. The basic objective of some forces turning “moderates” into a Northern Alliance of Islam is to address the perceived problem which has so far been tackled by promoting and supporting dictators, Sheikhs and kings.  Initial response from Washington was to support for the status quo, to remain silent and help the friendly dictators ban these groups from political activity.  

The suppression has however led to more “radicalized” groups. Iranian revolution was built on the US installed tyrannical rule of the Shah. Banning the Ikhwan gave birth to the Gamaa’a; banning the Islamic Salvation Front, led to the creation of the Armed Islamic Group.  Fatah was neutralized and Islamic Jihad was born. Prevention of dissent and misnomer occupation in Saudi Arabia led to Osama’s eruption in Afghanistan and hence the formation of the Al-Qaeda. Taliban were financed, trained and installed, but when they refused to obey, demonising of their faith followed. So all the strategies failed.  

Promoting a war within Islam became the main focus of renewed campaign to break the backbone of Islamic movements. “Moderates” became the hottest tool and many of us jumped on the bandwagon without a second thought. Artificial differences have since been promoted on massive scale. After September 11th, we, however, witnessed that Muslims from around the world — not just the “moderate” — expressed shock and remorse over the terrorist attacks, ranging from a moment of silence during a soccer match in Iran, to candlelight vigils throughout the Occupied Territories of Palestine. Statements of solidarity with the American people coupled with condemnations of the terrorist attacks were sent from practically every Muslim country.  It proved that lack of widespread hostility towards Americans and even many aspects of American culture is one feature of all Muslims and moderates are no exception.  

There is however no denying the fact that the yearning for self-government and freedom, a sentiment found on the streets of every Muslim city, still remains alive. To some, a form of Islamic democracy is a means to achieve those goals.  It is not only moderate Muslims but every Muslim voice is based on the need for equity, civil society within each Muslim country and on rapprochement with the West on the global level.  Every Muslim wants to promote this need for dialogue between civilizations, not confrontation. But no one is in the position to stop the US from looking for enemies and making artificial divisions among Muslims towards that end.

Avoiding violence and bloodshed is the basic principal of our faith and every Muslim is standing firm against repression, violence and terrorism as an Islamic obligation. In practical terms, more Muslims die from terrorist attacks than any other group. Violence at the hands of Muslims is just a reaction to injustice. Just the way Palestinians are fighting individually and collectively against occupation, Iraqis would be fighting tomorrow and Iranians, Syrians and Pakistanis the next day. 

Those who perpetrate violence in the name of Islam distort and abuse the texts in the name of their cause, but the texts themselves are not to blame and should not be the subject of scrutiny by anyone who qualifies himself as a moderate. Qur’an and hadith are clear in terms of supporting conflict only as a last resort in order to defend oneself against clear military aggression. Numerous restrictions apply, including the prohibition against killing civilians, destroying buildings, and fighting other Muslims. 

The fast flow of events and vested interested have made a monster of Islamic state. Since a majority of Muslims seek forms of government that incorporate Islamic law to one degree or another, the concept of Shari'a needs more understanding than what the Western and Muslim public have been subject to so far. It is wrong to label Muslims, who seek Shari’a as a way of advancing their societies as “extremists,” or disallow them from participating in political affairs. Legal systems based on Shari’a are a reality of the 21st century in that they already exist in many parts of the Muslim world.  

These need honest internal discussion among Muslims, something more than meetings in isolation, short answer, quick labelling and request to US for supporting one or another group. Examples include addressing notions of democracy and popular will within the Islamic context as has done by Dr. Israr Ahmad; creating space among the U.S. and others to allow discourse; moving the discussion to specifics involving laws and not simply doctrine. Within this framework, there must be great flexibility and an avoidance of oversimplification by Muslims and non-Muslims. To suggest that the only acceptable form of government involves the absolute separation of church and state is to ask for more tension and rejection.  

The latest assertions that “Islamism” or specifically “Wahhabism” is the problem are misguided attempts to impose preconceived solutions without thinking of the consequences in implementing such final solutions. Knowing very well that Islam is not an ism, not long ago, “Shiaism” was presented as the problem, and perhaps very soon “Sufism” will be the problem. The train of concessions and compromises will never stop if some of us kept acquiescing and surrendering the basics of Islam. So we have opportunists with political agendas lumping everything into one basket claiming that “Islamism” or political Islam is the problem, leaving us under their mercy to define it in the most imprecise, convoluted, and confusing way possible.  

If some of us are alleged to justify their violence through Qur’an, there are definitely many unqualified and self-proclaimed experts on Islam among us who use Qur’anic verses to increase divisiveness and the gulf of misunderstandings. They divide and define Muslims according to their agenda, which ends up hurting moderation and the image of Islam, not enhancing it.  

Islamic activists, scholars, religious leaders and writers have been lumped together as extremists. Unless we are able to clear the mist of misunderstandings, we will lose the renowned and learned scholars who are under threat of being crushed by secular militant repression of the Northern Alliance of Islam in the making. If Western scholars, political leaders and analysts sincerely dialogue with various figures, such as Dr. Israr Ahmad and Qazi Hussain Ahmad of Pakistan in the Muslim world, they will realize that the voice on the Muslim streets is not anti-American, or anti-Western. They are against certain and specific foreign policies. 

The latest imperial adventures on part of the US have brought a group of opportunists who pleads the US to support them in crushing dissent within their own countries. Of course, if you crush 90 per cent majority in the South, 10 per cent minority of the Northern Alliance will rule the rest. The same phenomenon is being played on the level of Muslim Ummah as a while. The US is being misguided to settle old accounts with rivals — both physically, such as misdirecting US bombers to hit rival neighbourhoods in Afghanistan, and politically, such as presenting Musharraf as a “moderate” for controlling extremist masses through continued dictatorship. The US imperial instinct therefore becomes an instrument for more oppression by the Northern Alliances of different kinds.

While the “moderate” Muslims oppose and highlight weakness of “extremist” Muslims to ensure their own existence, they reject the extremist exploitation of the legitimate grievances among the Muslim masses. If the US establishment is blind in its pursuit of other objectives, it is hoped that other Western intellectuals and opinion makers will avoid simplistic slogans on the current troubled parts of the Muslim world. Besides the neocons pushing Washington over the cliff, Northern Alliance has a greater role to play in jeopardising peace and security in the world. 

Instead of becoming the Northern Alliance of Islam, “moderates” will do favour to Islam by engaging in discussion and debate with the so-labelled “extremists.” It would promote an environment of understanding. Appeals to US for supporting and adding credibility to their agenda will further isolate these manipulative positions.