Western biases against non-extremist Muslims, and the West's sinister End

By Dr. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis

May 23, 2007 (http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=27848)

In three earlier articles, we criticized parts of an article published in the Economist that consists in the epitome of misinformation about Turkey; the article proceeds through a biased presentation of Islamic Terror symbols, like the headscarf, as a normal political choice of today’s Muslims.

By so doing, liberal and colonial circles of power in the West act on purpose to enlarge profit margin, attempting to control Turkey through various deals that the extremist Turkish Premier is ready to sign, ensuring therefore their financial and political support. The two agendas seem to coincide for a while, but it is only Western guilt, moral degradation and severe political corruption that makes governments and corporations believe that two omnipotent extremists, acting one as premier and another as president of Turkey, would possibly be controllable.

The reason for the Western biases against the modern, western, and democratic part of the Turkish establishment is to be found in the strengths of Turkey, a vast country with great periphery (from the Balkans to Central Asia and from the Middle East to Africa) and even greater potentialities.

Average people in the West without specific knowledge and extensive exposure in today’s Muslim world can easily fall victims of the biases. That is why it is absolutely necessary to scrutinize articles like that. When the impression is created that Turkey represents one extreme case within the Islamic world, and that Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan consist in the opposite pole, then the ensuing danger of perpetuated misinformation is truly great. Like this the truth is viciously alterated, and no improvement within the Islamic world can possibly be produced.

‘Over –westernized’ Turkey, ‘arch-conservative’ Arabia, and ‘mellow’ Egypt: an absolute falsehood

This ‘logic’ leads to Death; not only the metaphor itself is erroneous, but also the ramifications of the misinformation can be colossal of dimensions and lethal of nature. The hideous approach makes innocent victims believe that there is an entire camp whereby Muslims oscillate, adopting possible positions in-between the two extremes.

This over-schematization presents things without moral background and concern, for it allows every Westerner think that it is normal that a Muslim opts for this or that position, thus predisposing Western people to adopt as valid, human, civilized and acceptable any – particularly a ‘mellow’ one – position a Muslim would take. This would be the equivalent of demonizing the good as just opposite of the ‘evil’, and of giving the false impression that ‘good’ is an extreme position (opposed to its counterfeit, ‘bad’), which would conduct many people to opt for various in-between positions!

If we try to establish pertinent representation of real conditions, it is wrong to make assumptions like this. The Economist’s columnist presents Turkey and Tunisia at the ‘Over-westernized’ extreme end. This is purely false, and creates the wrong impression that only 85 million people (out of Dar al Islam’s approx. 1.3 billion people) opt for Western dress code for Muslim women. This hides the reality that most of the Muslims of Saharan and Sub-Saharan Africa are very progressive and fully Westernized, having nothing to envy from the Egyptians or the Tunisians. Furthermore, the non Westernized African Muslims are perhaps ‘traditional’ but they are not ‘extremist’ and ‘fanatic’.

Terribly misinformed, the Westerners ignore that more underdeveloped a Muslim country is, more peripheral it is, more technologically primitive it is, less fanatic its population is, less extremists its statesmen are, and less versed into barbarism and obscurantism its indigenous people are.

All the African traditional societies in remote provinces still live in a tolerant, peaceful and balanced environment without the clashes and the ensuing anxiety of the technologically advanced parts of the Muslim world in Africa. Terrorists are produced in urban center centers of the most advanced countries of the Third World.

It is only due to Western mass media’s provocative misinformation that many people assume that extremists, fanaticized, conservative urban Muslims of Cairo represent ‘tradition’; quite contrarily, they even do not imagine what their tradition was. In reality, these nouveau riches, urban middle classes have been socially and culturally disconnected from the traditional cells of Muslim societies that are still to be found in desert, plain, coast and desert villages; they represent a tolerant, traditional and moderate Islam that remains totally unknown to Westerners because of the vicious and pernicious character of the mass media.

To the moderate, tolerant and indulgent African Muslims who live in Mali, Abyssinia, Sudan, Algeria, Eritrea, Niger, Senegal, Chad, etc., one must add the Balkan Muslims, the Central Asiatic Muslims, the Azerbaijanis, the Indian Muslims (more than 150 – 160 million people), and the Turkic – Uralo-Altaic Muslims of China (at least 50 million). This makes a total of almost 500 million people who either in Europe, Asia or Africa are as tolerant and indulgent as the outright majority of the Turks. Among them, there are a great number of secular Muslims who do not want to practice Islam anymore or do practice it in a very abridged way. These considerably numerous Muslims, either they live in the First, Third or Fourth Worlds, have not been contaminated by the ideological pestilence of Hanbal, Ibn Taimiya, and Abdel Wahhab. Either in European Istanbul, Asiatic Samarqand or African Asmara, they reflect a world vision far more human than the repugnant idiocies of the irrelevant, extremist and disreputable bogus-university Al Azhar of Egypt. The conditions that prevail among Muslims in Tirana, Bishkek, Urumchi, Bangalore, Assab and Timbuktu make the average Egyptian Cairene society look like an Islamic social tyranny.

As conclusion, we can reaffirm that any social and political conditions similar to those prevailing in secular and laic Turkey cannot be considered as the ‘extreme’, or taken as one of the two poles of the Islamic world; they are the only Islamic society the West can afford to accept. The rest are to be rejected, castigated and severely penalized beforehand, if the West wants still to avoid an unprecedented clash.

Afghanistan and Iran as fraudulently presented by the Economist

The excerpt of the article reads as following:

“Not even that was allowed in Afghanistan under the Taliban regime, which mandated the burqa, the most extreme form of female covering. In today's Iraq, meanwhile, a big fissure in the Sunni resistance movement pits al-Qaeda-minded thugs who want women to wear gloves and the niqab (which differs from the burqa only in having slits for the eyes) and milder sorts who allow the simpler hijab, which covers hair and neck.

A clash over female attire is intensifying in neighbouring countries too. Just now, police in Iran are busy with their annual spring campaign against “bad hijab”, prowling parks and stopping traffic to enforce dress codes. This year's drive is the strictest for a decade. Thousands of women have received warnings; police cars have been parked outside shopping malls, scrutinising every customer; vehicles with improperly clad ladies at the wheel have been impounded. The crackdown, which also targets men in short sleeves or with extravagantly gelled hair, marks a reversal in a relative relaxation of dress codes which had occurred under President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's regime. The manteau, or coat, which women are supposed to wear to hide the shape of their bodies has been getting shorter, as have the trousers underneath; and some women have sported jeans and lipstick under chadors covering their upper body.

Whether the current campaign will have any enduring effect on the determination of Iranian women (and fashion designers) to interpret the rules creatively remains to be seen. But there are many Muslim countries where rows over headgear have already taken a toll in blood.”

This narrative is erroneous as well. In the beginning, it is gives sizeable space to slight differences characterizing Islamic Terror societies, namely Saudi Arabia, Sunni community of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran. This cannot be a matter of care for Western people, elites, decision makers and mass media. The only thing that matters is how to eradicate these attitudes, and in this case the World should learn from Turkey, and try to find a Mustafa Kemal Ataturk per country in despair, namely Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan.

Quite ‘innocently’ the Sunni gangsters who manned the Saddam Hussein tyranny, these terrorists who inhumanly kill Aramaean Christians, Mandaeans, Yazidis, Kurds, Shia and others are now called ” Sunni resistance movement”. This illuminates how the Economist - in the name of a bogus-liberalism - promotes Islamic Terrorism. The attitude is childish, the hopes are vain, and the target is foolish. Because the coward and paranoid liberals of London, Paris and New York try to assuage the Islamic Terror today, this does not mean even for a second that tomorrow Islamic Terrorists will say ‘thanks’ and spare their lives.

Is it an atypical matter of Western conspiracy attempting to help a bogus-Mahdi rise as leader of all the Muslims or a typical case of Western paranoia? The next excerpt shows that, although irrelevant to Muslim societies that they never represented and analyzed in their articles, authors of articles like this still present / narrate a great part of present truth, but fail to grasp its importance.

The paragraph reads as follows:

“In Pakistan last year, an assassin shot dead a provincial government minister, judging her gauzy head covering not Islamic enough. In January a clash between Tunisian police and Islamist rebels left 12 dead. The rebels said they were “defending their veiled sisters against oppression”, a reference to the fact that Tunisia's president dismisses the hijab as an alien form of “sectarian dress” and has sent police to toy shops to seize dolls with scarves.”

Yet, this says clearly that what the current situation in the Muslim world needs is a genuine and frontal clash to crash the pro-tyrannical and pro-obscurantist elements in the same way Kemal Ataturk eradicated the Ottoman legacy system.

What the Islamic world needs today is precisely the diametrically opposed of what corrupt magazines and newspapers, rotten minds of reporters and journalists, pathetic publishers and criminal politicians – puppets of the Freemasonic lodges of Liberalism, Evolutionism, Materialism, Atheism, Consumerism, and Homosexual-ism can offer.

The present day Islamic societies need a terrible shock that will eliminate the barbarism and the false debates, a radical approach and a statesman to

- proclaim that Arabic language must be written in Latin characters (as Kemal Ataturk did in Turkey),

- prohibit the headscarf from any place outside homes

- impose videoconferencing khutba (Friday prayer sermon) throughout all the mosques, thus eliminating dozens of thousands of terrorist sheikhs who incite masses to Terrorism

- abolish Friday as non working day

- impose mixed schools,

- de-penalize premarital sex,

- ensure free alcohol trade,

- ultimately prohibit under death penalty drugs trade and use, and

- abolish any existing Sharia-related concept and law.

Instead of pushing in the paranoiac direction of Islamic Terror, columnists like that of the Economist should wonder how much time would be left to them at a moment of Islamic revolt I Europe, and how many days will be left to Israel, if neo-Nazi Erdogan gets his buddy elected as president of Turkey. It will look ironical to see his besotted European and American supporters becoming his target, when after dominating Turkey he will proclaim his alliance with Iran, China and Russia against Europe and America.