‘Orientalism’ & Why it Really Does Matter: Interview with Professor Marandi [Part 2]

Hadi Safa

Part 2 of the interview with Professor Mohammad Marandi.

To view Part 1 of the interview click here

Question:

We spoke politically about the Arab world, but I want to ask about the image of Islam itself, especially in the West. We can safely say that there is a growing fear and disgust of Islam in the Western world; maybe not generally speaking, but certainly in certain parts of the Western world that holds true.

Does this trend have more to do with the actions of groups like "ISIL" and al-Qaeda, or does it have to do with media coverage of these organizations, their actions, and their attribution to Islam?

Answer:

Well if we are to really look at the underlining reason for this disgust, if people are willing to be open minded, the reason for these atrocities being committed, whether by "ISIL", or by al-Qaeda, Nusra Front, and others, is due to Western policy in this part of the world. The United States and the Europeans, they alongside the Turkish president, as well as family dictatorships in this region, for the last 5 years they have been empowering extremists, this is something that the former head of the US national intelligence agency, the retired general Flynn, has admitted in an interview recently, that the United States was involved, and that it was a willful decision of the United States to help these extremist groups early on in what was going on in Syria. On the other hand, the US vice president said just a few months ago, that US allies were instrumental in creating "ISIL". So this was a coordinated policy, just like it was in the 1980s and 90s, when they were helping extremist groups in Afghanistan.

So to attribute this to Muslim ideology or the Muslim religion would be unfair and dishonest, because more than any other factor, it was Western government policy, along with policy of client regimes, such as Saudi Arabia, that advocate extremism. In addition to funding these extremist militant organizations, the United States knows that its closest allies, such as Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, and Qatar, they advocate Wahhabism and Takfiri Islam. They haven't been doing it for one or two years, they've been doing it for decades now for their own objectives. They have had a traditional alliance with these extremist clerics, and they help keep them in power, and they export this extremism to other countries. They've been doing it for decades in Afghanistan, in Pakistan, these two countries didn't have a history of extremism before the 1980s and the 1990s, but they do now, because of the export of this Saudi culture. We see it expanding in Nigeria through Boko Haram.

So on the one hand they've been helping to create this militant side of Takfiri Islam, whether it's al-Qaeda, or the Nusra Front in Syria, Iraq, in Yemen alongside the Saudis, in North Africa, but also, they've allowed their allies to export their allies to export this ideology behind this extremism. So more than anything else, it is the Western countries that are to blame, as well as their regional client regimes. It is a widespread belief, but an unfair belief, to attribute it to true Islam.

Question:

So we can say that the rise of Islamophobia can be attributed to the West and its client states in the region?

Answer:

Yes, more than anything else, without a doubt.

Question:

Does that apply to Iranophobia as well?

Answer:

Yes of course, yes. Although they would like to say that Muslims or Iranians are to blame, but the fact is that they themselves have advocated policies of extremism, they've allowed their allies that are extremists, like the Saudis, the Saudis and "ISIL" have a single ideology, they advocate the same religious ideology, which is Takfiri, and Wahhabi. The most important masjid or mosque in Qatar, it's a huge mosque, is called the Mohammad ibn Abdul Wahab mosque. Only two countries in the world recognized the Taliban regime in the 1990s, it was Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. So these are regimes that officially and at multiple levels, advocate these ideologies.

This is not something new. But the fact is that Western governments close their eyes to this reality because they thought it was in their strategic interests, for this religion of hate to expand, in order for them to isolate the Resistance front or countries that resist Western hegemony, whether it is Iran, Syria, the Palestinian movement, or the Lebanese resistance movement, or anyone else, the best way to isolate them would be to have as many Muslims as possible to focus their hatred towards them. The United States saw that it was in their interest, they helped the Taliban, they allowed the Saudis and the Emirates to fund the Taliban ideology and the militancy, they allowed and encouraged the Pakistan intelligence services to help the Taliban gain power, because they thought it was in their strategic interests, it would increase threats on the Iranian border, [Iran] was an enemy to the United States, and the US continues to be hostile towards Iran, and it would enable them to transfer oil and gas from central Asia to the international market, without having to go through Iran and Russia. Of course this failed. The problem is Western policy in this part of the world has repeatedly been unsuccessful, and they've paid the price of these policies, but they continue to pursue them. What they are doing now in Syria and other parts of this region, such as in Yemen, is an extension of what they did in Afghanistan in the 1980s and 90s, but they simply haven't learnt their lesson.

Question:

Can we say that fear of Muslims, and fear of Iranians in particular, or Islamophobia and Iranophobia, that they make perfect sense, when seen through the lens of a Western orientalist narrative, or empire building?

Answer:

Well it makes perfect sense because, first of all, it is an extension of the Orientalism of old, the narratives are not new, they've existed for centuries, but they are intensified when countries such as Iran assert their independence, and oppose policies imposed on them by the West, this narrative focuses on a country like Iran and intensifies its hatred, and then when regional regimes that are clients of the West, when they are introduced into this confrontation, the West will close its eyes to anything they do. So ironically, the extremism that we see in this region, such as al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or "ISIL", very few people in the West will talk about the roots of the problem, and that is Saudi Arabia for example, and the Emirates, and Bahrain - the regime there - and Qatar. Why [don't they speak about it]? These are client regimes, they sell oil and gas, and they put the money in Western banks. They purchase Western weapons, they further empower the wealthy in the West, those who own major companies, banks, and who sell weapons etc., these become a powerful lobby that advocate these regimes. So the link between these regimes and the West are extensive.

Therefore, instead of focusing attention on the cause of the problem, they focus on the victim, just like in Palestine. You know, when the "Israelis" - regardless of the atrocities they carry out - it is the Palestinian victims that are demonized, because they are Muslim, supposedly backward, and less civilized, yet when the Israelis carry out massive crimes against the Palestinian people, because the Israelis are more civilized, or supposed to be more civilized, they are allowed to get away with it. Because countries like the US and Israel are supposedly more superior, they do not commit crimes, they make mistakes, they miscalculate, they have mistaken policies, but they are not evil.

So, while Obama is very guilty for the crimes committed by "ISIL", no one is going to accuse Obama of being a war criminal. Whereas for example, when Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against Iranians, that was not a crime at that time, the Western media and governments didn't say anything about it, they actually helped him. But when they wanted to invade Iraq, they quickly switched the narrative and made him a threat to the world. So this narrative is deployed when necessary, against countries that are the focus of hegemonic ambitions. But at the same time, it is something that alludes to all Muslims. It is a generalizing framing of Muslim behavior, Muslim culture, and despite the huge diversity, they are all put into one lump, so when you look at it carefully, it is something that goes back to the beginning of empire and even before as a justification for Western empire, and it is used today as a tool to justify Western policy against different countries, to destroy countries, to invade countries.

You know, today you will see nothing about what is going on in Yemen, about al-Qaeda being supported by Saudi Arabia, but you will have general negative comments about Muslims turning to extremism and so on, yet they will not really attention to be drawn to American policy and the policies of its client regimes, in allowing this sort of extremism in this part of the world.

Question:

So we've run out of time, but a quick question for people to actually be proactive in a way. When we talk about this hegemony of the Western media and the Western narrative, do things like new media - whether it's YouTube, Facebook, and such social media sites - do they, or can they provide real opportunities for alternative views, alternative voices, and ultimately alternative narratives, in order to at least dent the dominant Western narrative that prevails today?

Answer:

I don't think that it has changed the equation of power, because the accumulation of wealth and the sheer power of Western corporations that have in the past been able to create this powerful narrative, holds true today for social media today as well. Obviously, the New York Times, CNN, and other major outlets in the West have far more impact on social media than do alternative websites. So the imbalance today continues. What is changing though is the decline of these central powers of the past. In other words, Europe and the United States, their economic strength - in general - is weakening, and this lends itself to alternative voices, the Saudis and Qataris are declining, so right now they are at the height of their power in sending out messages of extremism and domination through outlets such as al-Jazeera and al-Arabiya, and hundreds of other news channels that are directly or indirectly funded by these governments, but the declining price of oil, the fact that they have overextended themselves, the fact that they are exporting an extremism that many people are beginning to recognize as extreme, not just in Syria, people in North Africa are beginning to have great fears of the ideology coming out of this part of the world, all these put together, the decline of oil-rich family dictatorships and the decline of the United States in relative terms, not a complete decline but in relative terms, the economic crisis in Europe, these are what create new opportunities for other centers of power to be able to extend and develop counter narratives that will be more influential in the future.

Otherwise, social media provides opportunities, but it provides much greater opportunities to those that are powerful. But that is the nature of resistance that we see today, they are working against a much greater power, a power that has accumulated wealth, that is suppressive and oppressive, that is, the Western empire, but I believe the world is changing much faster than the Americans and its allies would want to see it.

Source: al-Ahed News