Tony Blair’s recent outburst on Political
Islam sounds like an indirect confession. He has contributed towards its rise,
and now wants the rest of the world to contain it. His message sounds like an intolerant
person who cannot co-exist with an opposing view. If political Islam is the
people’s choice then what exactly is the problem Mr Blair? Or Is Blair an intolerant
extremist who wants to impose his ways on others?
He is also a war criminal;
accordingly, he should stand for trial at The Hague. However, that is extremely
unlikely, regardless of his crimes and the evidence presented, because leaders
of a western block countries set the rules to subject others, whilst they have
total immunity. The empirical evidence corroborates this; the International Criminal
Court (ICC) has been largely applied on former leaders of African and Arab countries.
In the spirit of equality and progress, we must break from our ‘prejudice’ and pluck
out a leader for a trial from the Western block, be it Blair or Bush or even a
second rate Dick Cheney will do. It is possible, the US produced a black
leader, even though he may not be black enough for some, but at least it’s something.
Likewise, we may get to a point, where
the international tribunals are applied to all war criminals, not just the
non-white ones.
What about the extremism of Tony
Blair? And the question follows, what is an extremist. Let us take the
commonsense approach and define it as deviation from the norm. Thus, note the
following points: Is it normal for the leader of a country to invade another sovereign
country on a false pretext? Yes, so much blood spilt over those mythical WMDs in
Iraq, and they are still missing, but who cares as long as only Israel has them!
Is it normal for a leader to lecture on religious fundamentalism and then
proclaim that he has a hotline to a Christian God, who is directing the slaughter,
like some modern day crusader? Is it normal for a leader to lecture on
democracy, and then side with the military coup d’état in Egypt, against the
choice of the people? Is it consistent to call for democracy in the Middle
East, and then remain silent, as the neo-Pharaoh of Egypt calls for elections,
whilst all the legitimate opposition are all locked up in jail, tortured or
waiting to be executed?
All extremist acts and reacts
disproportionately; the neo-conservative-led America responded to 9/11
consuming many more innocent lives in distant lands, than the approximate 3000 that
perished on that day. Extremist Blair was one of the cheerleaders, and despite
the level of carnage and moral outrage and deceit, he remains unrepentant, and
refuses to acknowledge the flimsy and manufactured evidence supplied to support
the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, because arrogance is a companion of
extremists. Did these actions not contribute to destabilising the region, and
propel more young Muslims to take up the ideology of Jihad as a means to repel the invasion?
Usually, torture and
incarceration is attributed to non-democratic extremists like Saddam Hussein,
or some other despot, but as the war unfolded, it confirmed that all extremists
depict the same traits. A by-product of the war produced Guantanamo Bay, Abu
Ghraib and from the leaked documents we now know with certainty that systematic
torture, or as conveniently called by the liberal extremists “enhanced
interrogation”, was a policy set in motion by Dick Cheney, who was then Vice
President, not to mention many incarcerated until today.
The consciousness of extremists
does not acknowledge the double standards, so they remain oblivious to the systematic
torture and incarceration which contradict the values they preach; the fundamental
values of human rights and presumption of innocence. Moreover, this policy of
torture was applied on the very people they are trying to lecture about the virtues
of human rights and good governance.
To add insult to injury, extremist
Blair was appointed as an ambassador for peace in the Middle East where he was
partly responsible for the carnage and destabilising of the region. I guess his overt pro-Zionist credentials
make him very suitable for the post! Accordingly, he remained supportive of the
disproportionate response by the Israeli forces, and the carnage that resulted in
Gaza.
Blair tells us that he is only
opposed to the extremist elements among the Muslims, who make a twisted
interpretation of the text. Let us put that on freeze, and agree with him. So
we would expect some kind of support and sympathy when non-extremists Muslims
suffer. He could have demonstrated that over the situation in Burma and CAR
(Central African Republic) were the defenceless Muslims were attacked in the
most horrific manner.
As for those making a twisted
interpretation of the Islamic texts, they are no different to those who make
twisted interpretations of democracy. The extremist liberal clerics believe
that democracy can be and should be imposed with bombs and bullets. Similarly,
they argue to force a Muslim woman (nuns excluded) to remove her veil to set
her free!
Only extremists would impose
democracy or Islam by force. The non-extremists believe to the contrary. For
different reasons both systems require the consent of the masses - this is more
so for Islam, obeying the divine laws and values is worship, thus it has to
come from within. And godless democracy in a secular paradigm also has a similar
attribute, it is expressing the will of the people, hence also has to come from
within.
Yamin Zakaria (yamin@radicaliviews.org,
#yaminzakaria)
Published 27/04/2014
London, UK
No comments:
Post a Comment