It was 31 December, 2015. The venue was Cologne. People were all set to welcome 2016. But their joy soon turned into despair as hordes of men of “Arab and African appearance” went on a sexual rampage against unsuspecting women. Despite the concerted efforts of the Liberal media to conceal or play down the incident, the news spread like wildfire. Cologne assault was eerily to similar to taharrush jam’ai- an Arab and primarily Egyptian phenomenon of mass sexual assaults. This was an indictment of Germany’s suicidal immigration policy that let in millions of “refugees” from the Middle East, aggravated by the Syrian civil war.
The beginning to the year 2017 was not much different. This time it was Istanbul where an ISIS terrorist dressed in a Santa Claus costume murdered at least 39 people in a nightclub.
Ever since the Charlie Hebdo attack, Europe has had to bear the brunt of Jihad to a much larger extent. Charlie Hebdo was followed by the Bataclan theatre massacre, Brussels airport bombings, Nice truck attack and Berlin Christmas attack, among other incidents. Terrorism has become the new normal in Europe now. A matter of daily affairs so to speak. Brussels, the seat of the European Union is also a hub of Islamic terrorism. Quite symbolic indeed. Molenbeek, a district of Brussels, is probably the capital of European chapter of Jihad.
But it would be dishonest to say nothing has changed in the space of a year. Indeed, some crucial events did take place. It all started with Brexit. The success of the “Vote Leave” campaign was a repudiation of the transnational scam that is the European Union; the EU that had undermined the very sovereignty of nation-states. This had a greater impact and Eurosceptics like Geert Wilders and Marine Le Pen began to demand a referendum in their countries: the Netherlands and France respectively. The popularity of leaders like Frauke Petry of the AfD (Alternative für Deutschland) and Marine Le Pen of the Front National has increased. The culmination of a nascent nationalist movement- a movement against globalism, Islamic terrorism was the election of Donald J. Trump as the President-elect of the USA. Yet, the question looms large: Were any concrete steps taken against Islamic terrorism and can we hope to see some in the near future?
The writer is a conservative and skepticism towards radical change and its efficacy comes naturally to a conservative. It would be disingenuous of us to expect effective large-scale changes in policy vis-à-vis Islamic terrorism. The civilians might well be concerned and rightfully so about the changes that accompany a rise in Muslim demography; be it an increase in crime rates, gender segregation, Jihadism etc. but the Liberal political establishment of the Western world has so far not paid heed to the growing concerns of its citizens. This is evident in its lack of actions against the scourge of Jihad. You can call it the “democracy handicap.”
The US, for example, claims to preserve “freedom “and fight Islamic terrorism, but it’s an ally of Saudi Arabia- a country that has financed the cause of Islam all over the world through organizations like the Muslim World League (MWL), its well established network of fundamentalist preachers and petrodollars.
This becomes clearer when we consider the ongoing civil war in Syria. The US and Saudi Arabia have aided the “rebel” groups against the Ba’athist regime of Bashar al- Assad- supported by Russia and Iran. Whatever be Assad’s faults, one would have to be rather thick to believe the toppling of the Assad regime would not lead to greater instability in the region and result in Syria becoming another front for Jihad. The past American “experiments” in Iraq and Libya failed disastrously with far reaching consequences; notably the rise of ISIS.
American obsession of exporting democracy (a codeword for maintaining its Middle Eastern imperium) goes back to former President Woodrow Wilson who famously said- “The world must be made safe for democracy.” One can argue with certain degree of certainty that supporting Jihad in abroad has been the standard policy of the US and especially Britain for the past century in the hopes of securing their strategic interests. What we observe today is a case of “mismanaged imperium.” The US and Britain initially saw the Muslim Brotherhood as a bulwark against the Arab nationalist and socialist politics of Gamal Abdel Asser. Mark Curtis’s ‘Secret Affairs: Britain’s collusion with Radical Islam’ explores the tie up between the West and Jihad in detail.
A quote from the book should suffice-”The problem with Nasser was, the Foreign Office stated, that ‘the neutralist position [neither support for the West nor the Soviet Union] fits in with the desire of the regime to show that Egypt can stand up to the Western powers on equal terms’- that is, act independently of, and challenge the policies of, the colonial master. Nasser’s Egypt became the chief proponent of what was being described by a Foreign Office official as the ‘virus of Arab nationalism’.
The members of the Brotherhood found shelter in Saudi Arabia, an ally of the West, after they had been banished from Egypt by Nasser. America and Britain also engineered a coup d’etat against Mohammed Mossadegh, the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran in 1953. The reason for the coup was Mossadegh’s nationalisation of the then AIOC (Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, now British Petroleum) In doing so,they sought the support of Ayatollah Kashani and a fundamentalist Shia organization called Fadayan-e-Islam. The West, despite knowledge of the fact that they aided fundamentalist forces in order to topple comparatively moderate regimes, went ahead with their plan for securing their strategic interests. This does not mean we exonerate Islam and its doctrine that had already inspired Jihad movements. The point is that the West’s interventions in an already troubled area made matters much worse. In an environment where Islamists were flexing their muscles, American foreign policy provided the Islamists the necessary breathing space. Seen in this light, Syrian civil war is only an extension of the standard Western policy regarding Jihad: Duplicity and doublespeak.
Will Trump’s policy be any different? This is anybody’s guess. Trump has tried to cozy up to Putin and more Republicans have begun to view Putin favourably and he has had his run ins with Saudi. So, will the USA try to move away from its alliance with Saudi and also form a possible US-Russia alliance in the future? But then again, these are speculations and history has taught us better than to blindly trust speculations. Moreover, from a theological perspective; Protestantism- the major Christian denomination in the US, and Salafism- the major Islamic sect in Saudi, are very similar. The leaders of Protestant Reformation like Martin Luther, John Calvin and Ulrich Zwingli advocated ad fontes (Latin:back to the source. Here the source is the Bible), sola scriptura (Latin:scripture alone) and sought to purge Christianity off its ‘’corrupting, idolatrous’’ pagan elements. Like the early Protestants, Salafis advocate that the Qur’an is the only source of morality, righteousness etc. What is more interesting is the fact that Martin Luther himself was not apprehensive about Islam. Considering these similarities, does it surprise anyone that Saudi is an ally of Protestant America? Therefore, we should not expect radical changes from the Trump administration.
Thomas Hegghammer, an expert on Islamism, has hypothesized that Europe could see a further rise in Jihadism owing to:
1) Expected growth in the number of economically underperforming Muslim youth.
2) Expected growth in the number of available Jihadi entrepreneurs.
3) Persistent conflict in the Muslim world
4) Continued operational freedom for clandestine actors on the Internet.
A way to limit the influence and spread of Jihad in the short term would be to ensure the survival of Assad regime in Syria and somehow try to isolate Turkey. To counter the Protestant-Salafi nexus, Russia (Orthodox Christian) and Iran (Shia) have formed an alliance. This is but logical. Samuel Huntington argued in The Clash of civilizations that alliances in the post- Cold war world would largely be based on civilizational affinity than mere ideology. This is a reason why a faction of Republicans have a favourable view of Putin’s Russia.
Huntington’s pitfall is that he fails to explain the Protestant-Salafi nexus. India, under Prime Minister Narendra Modi has gotten closer to Japan. This is a manifestation of Huntington’s thesis.
Every nation genuinely concerned with tackling the menace of Jihad must do a soul searching and try to revamp its institutions, reconnect with its civilizational heritage and wrestle it away from the control of the Liberal-Islamist alliance. The European Union must fall. The EU has bulldozed the sovereignty of nations- economic and political. With its suicidal human rights laws, the EU has put the fate of European nations in jeopardy. With France and Germany set to go to polls this year, it will be interesting to see how the resurgence of the Right affects the Euro zone. Law and order- proper enforcement of asylum laws, deportation of illegal and incompatible “immigrants”, surveillance of notorious mosques, check on the cash flow from the Muslim world into key areas like education, culture and academia is essential. Liberation of lands occupied by Islamic forces by brute force is of special importance and will go a long way in securing the future of a nation from the cancer that is Islamic terrorism.
Leave a Reply