Imperialism And Resistance

Tags: Malik El Shabbaz

As part of the imperialist hearts and minds campaign against Muslims and Islam, there are concerted attempts to influence religious studies curriculum, and the overall atmosphere and culture at educational institutions. There has always been a very thin slice within Muslim majority countries, mostly from the elite upper classes, who made it their purpose in life to imitate the worst of the “west” - and snub the culture and religion of the vast majority of Muslims. However, the hearts and minds campaign attempts to target the growing professional and semi-professional middle classes, who have closer links to the “masses.”

In Pakistan, the latest move has been to create an independent and private board of education, called the “Aga Khan Examination Board.” The schools affiliated with this board are to follow a specified curriculum, send teachers to their “teacher training institutes,” and are expected to meet other requirements related to day to day administration.

A number of schools catering to Shi’a Muslims have affiliated themselves with this board, and the kind of changes brought about because of this board has resulted in an outcry. Recently, a seminar was held detailing the problematic aspects of the Aga Khan Examination Board (AKEB). The entire seminar, in Urdu, can be viewed on line (see below for links).

An aspect of the AKEB, that was discussed at the seminar, is the emphasis on “pluralism.” I would suggest that what is being referred to is liberal pluralism, that places all ideas at an equal footing, and as being equally valid. This lays the ground work for an importation of the imperialist’s culture. Initially the worst of the “west” is placed at an equal footing with Islam, and then, later, the indigenous Islamic way is undermined through a demeaning of the religion.

Liberal pluralism encourages “dialogue” but without consideration of power imbalances, and the “dialogue” forum is used to promote “western”/US hegemony. The other side, such as Muslims, barely have a voice in such pluralist forums, are often talked down to, and expected to abide by the assumptions of the imperialists.

Ex-President of Iran, Khatami’s “dialogue between civilizations” was an attempt at liberal pluralism, and it produced little or no results benefiting Muslims, and/or all those oppressed. However, there is something that could be called justice oriented pluralism, where comprehensive dialogues takes place amongst diverse oppressed peoples struggling for justice - while respecting the fact that not everything is going to be agreed upon.

Thus, while there are cultural and religious differences between Venezuela and Lebanon and Iran, both Hassan Nasrallah, and President Ahmadinejad have correctly called President Chavez their brother because of his anti-imperialist stand. Such dialogue, when extended to educational and political people to people exchanges, would result in an appreciation of histories, diminishing of stereotypes, and increase comradery amongst those struggling for justice.

A liberal pluralism, on the other hand, only aids in perpetuating injustices, and results in little more than creating native informants.

Seminar on the affiliation of Shi’a Muslim schools with the Aga Khan Examination Board (Urdu):

Part 1: Introduction, and a critique of liberal pluralism Aga Zahid Ali Zahidi

Part 2: Q & A Aga Zahid Ali Zahidi

Part 3: This part contains the speech by Aga Syed Ali Murtaza Zaidi

Part 4: Q & A Aga Syed Ali Murtaza Zaidi

Part 5: A short speech by Aga Ali Mubabbir (Vakil of Ayatollah Sistani) in which he discusses his conversation with Ayatollah Sistani’s Najaf office

Part 6: Speech by Moulana Shabbir Maisam

Tags: Allama Ali Murtaza Zaidi

Tags: Hassan Nasrallah

I think it is important to spend some time analyzing Obama, and his policies, given the sway amongst Muslims towards him - that can only be a result of not bothering to take a closer look at his policies and imperial strategy.

This is Obama’s agenda - as presented on his website change.gov

“The Obama Administration has a comprehensive and detailed agenda to carry out its policies. The principal priorities of the Obama Administration include: a plan to revive the economy, to fix our health care, education, and social security systems, to define a clear path to energy independence, to end the war in Iraq responsibly and finish our mission in Afghanistan, and to work with our allies to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, among many other domestic and foreign policy objectives.”

The first part of his agenda is for domestic consumption, and is about the economy - without fixing the economy he cannot even begin to address health care, education, and social security systems. If we now look at his economic transition team, we find that his team primarily consists of big business CEOs, millionaires and billionaires, with only one mayor, and one governor (of Michigan who advocates pumping more tax $$$ into a failed auto industry). Not a single representative from the grass roots, not one person invited from consumer advocacy groups, nor from any of the economic justice groups. Meaning, not a single person representing the tens of millions who voted for Obama. No change.

The second part is about Obama’s policy towards Muslims, i.e. the war on Islam and Muslims. Lets take this one item at a time:

1. End the war in Iraq responsibly.

What does this mean? Well, contrary to what has been assumed, it does not mean a withdrawal, and/or ending the US brutal occupation of the country. In fact, it does not even mean an end to the killings of the Iraqi people. Because Obama’s plan including maintaining upwards of 50-60,000 troops in Iraq, along with military bases.

Opposition on the part of Obama to a full withdrawal was also reflected in the admission (during a primary debate) that he could not guarantee a full withdrawal from Iraq by 2013. This claim demonstrates the full extent of Obama’s commitment to misrepresenting his views to the American public. His promise to “end this war now” amounts to little more than propaganda in light of claims that U.S. combat operations will continue for at least the next five years, perhaps indefinitely. It is difficult to see how substantively different this is from Republican presidential front-runner John McCain, who recently claimed he would remove most troops by 2013 as well.

Well first, there’s his adamant condemnation of the war in Iraq. Why, he was against it from the very start. Of course, that hasn’t prevented him from voting continually to fund the Occupation. But hey, he has to get elected before he can implement all his wonderful changey policies, right? You know, like maintaining a presence of 50,000 to 80,000 troops in Iraq, along with a dozen or so permanent military bases and the world’s largest foreign embassy.

2. Finish our mission in Afghanistan.

This is part of Obama’s expansion of the war on Islam and Muslims, he intends to use troops taken from Iraq for a surge in Afghanistan, and future attacks on Pakistan. And he has praised Bush for taking these war expansion steps.

Barack Obama said … he would order a surge of U.S. troops – perhaps 15,000 or more – to Afghanistan as soon as he reached the White House.

With regards to the expansion of the war into Pakistan, Obama is worse than Bush: While Bush sends in drones that kill families and children, this guy thinks of those as “baby steps.”

US Presidential hopeful Barrack Obama has termed the cross-border raids by the US forces into Pakistan as a small step in the right direction.

Obama supported the raids but described them as “baby steps” by the Bush’s administration.

“The Bush administration has come to that point of view. That’s the kind of policy we have to pursue and continue …This is a baby step, but it’s a baby step in the right direction and something that John McCain hasn’t been willing to acknowledge,” Susan Rice, the top foreign policy adviser to Senator Obama, said.

“Senator Obama has been saying for well over a year, in fact, has been saying frankly since before the invasion of Iraq that the central front in the war on terror is Afghanistan and Pakistan. And we need to invest there,” she noticed.

3. Iran

Obama has basically repeated the same ‘ol nonsensical Bush refrain of Iran “building nukes” and “supporting terr.” He has also been especially belligerent when speaking in front the Zionist lobby audience, and has said:

The Iranian “regime is a threat to all of us,”

Ultimately, based on Obama’s own stated policy positions, there is little or no change that we can expect. It is important to recognize this fact, otherwise we may end up going to sleep, while the Obama regime continues to make things worse for billions around the world.

Tags: Obama

by Carlos Latuff

Tags: Carlos Latuff, Obama