Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

‘Freedom’ Fundamentalists

Expand Messages
  • ummyakoub
    `Freedom Fundamentalists Yamin Zakaria Hypocrisy is an inherent part of the disbelievers way of life The recent ban imposed upon the Muslim women in France
    Message 1 of 1 , Jan 3, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      `Freedom' Fundamentalists
      Yamin Zakaria

      "Hypocrisy is an inherent part of the disbelievers way of life"

      The recent ban imposed upon the Muslim women in France from wearing
      the Islamic scarf (Hijab) gives credence to the above opinion held by
      many Muslims. It was not too long ago that the Taliban were demonised
      for not giving a choice to the women of Afghanistan regarding the
      Islamic scarf, but is it not the same choice now being denied by
      Chirac? France can be excused but not the Taliban! The same principle
      is applied by the other member nations (US, UK and Israel) of the
      Judeo-Christian civilisation as they conduct their brutal aggression
      and subsequent colonisation under the umbrella of `defence'
      and `freedom'. Isn't it simply hypocritical to wage an unprovoked
      war, killing indiscriminately and causing immense destruction in the
      name of bringing `freedom'? What can the dead in Iraq do with
      their `freedom'? What use is `freedom' to those, whose loved ones
      have been killed, property destroyed, and the wealth of their nation
      looted? They are not the recipients of `freedom' but the victims of
      the `freedom' fundamentalists, who are intoxicated with imperial
      arrogance, fanaticism and intolerance.

      The issue of Guantanamo Bay is another example of this same hypocrisy
      of the `freedom' fanatics lecturing the world about human rights,
      whilst violating the same at will. Then we had the recent charade of
      finding WMD in Iraq, whilst existing in abundance in their own
      backyard, as they are the creators and the largest producers of these
      types of weapons. Hence, no surprise, that the only WMD found in Iraq
      were those used by the marauding invaders. The US then ripped open
      Iraq's economy, without any legitimate authority, in a manner that it
      would not do to its own economy. One can go on producing an endless
      list of the duplicity emanating from these `freedom' fanatics.
      However, it is worth a closer analysis of this notion of `freedom',
      as Bush and Blair have been using it incessantly since 9/11, without
      substantiating its meaning.

      In the current political context, the inference from the linguistic
      meaning of the word is simply "self-rule", and therefore `freedom'
      dictates that the nation must decide of its own free will as to how
      it should govern itself. Which implies that `freedom' must be
      established from within rather than imposed by a foreign army. The
      only exception to this, is when a nation under occupation invites
      some third party to aid them in their pursuit for liberation, as an
      example, the French under the Nazis invited the Allied forces to help
      them liberate their country.

      The `freedom' zealots have a different approach to this matter.
      According to the dynamic duo (Bush and Blair) `freedom' extremists,
      absence of `freedom' as interpreted by them, legitimises its
      enforcement, even by the use of force. It does not matter, whether it
      is Gotham city or Baghdad, you must have it. Of course, "enforcing
      freedom" is a self-contradictory notion, since enforcing denies one
      the freedom of choice, and freedom necessitates the absence of an
      external (foreign) enforcing authority! So the motto is,
      although `freedom' offers choices, however, there is no choice on the
      issue of governing by the notion of `freedom' as interpreted by
      the `freedom' fanatics, regardless of the opinion of the masses.
      Therefore, legitimacy of `freedom' has to be certified by the High
      Priests of `freedom' fundamentalism. For sure, the High Priests will
      not issue the certification, until the government selected complies
      with their interests. Perhaps, this is why there has been no free
      election in Iraq to date, as the early signs indicated that the
      Iraqis prefer an independent Islamic form of government. It is for
      the same reason that the West kept silent, and indirectly assisted
      the Algerian government to suspend the election, when the Islamic
      party (FIS) was clearly poised to win.

      To a layperson, `freedom' may simply mean, the lack of restraint.
      Restrictions are usually imposed by the state and society, manifested
      in the laws and regulations. Hence does `freedom' imply a lawless
      society, total anarchy, like the jungle? As primitive society
      progresses towards a modern urbanised democratic society, its laws
      and regulations grow and consequently diminish `freedom'. Hence, in
      the pursuit of `freedom', should societies become more primitive,
      i.e. lawless? In some respects, societies have become more primitive
      over the years as they try to attain greater `freedom'. The sexual
      relationship is an example, the traditional constraint of marriage,
      ethics and morality are being eroded. The youths in the clubs and the
      beach parties fornicate in public without any inhibition, bringing
      them closer to the conduct of animals in the jungle that are totally

      The scholars of `freedom' fundamentalism acknowledge that order and
      stability is a prerequisite for human survival, and absolute freedom
      results in chaos. Therefore, they define `freedom' as being subjected
      to the laws and values imposed by the society, which is subjective as
      it emanates from certain beliefs, local customs and traditions. Hence
      the notion of `freedom' is subjective! So who is then to judge, which
      is a free society and which is not? As an example, many Western
      societies allow same sex marriage but prohibit polygamy and view it
      with disdain. Why is the former an endorsement of `freedom' but the
      latter is not? Despite this, the `freedom' zealots will often attempt
      to portray it as an absolute and universal concept, transcending all
      civilisations, often inferring from its linguistic meaning, which has
      no reality except through the lawless jungle. For the self appointed
      High Priests of `freedom' fundamentalism, they assume to have a
      monopoly over its meaning and implementation.

      Therefore let us have a cursory examination of `freedom' as
      implemented by the `freedom' fundamentalists.

      Political System

      The embodiment of `freedom' is proclaimed in the system of Democracy.
      In theory, the masses exercise their free will to select the ruling
      authority that would be representative of their interests. They are
      supposed to be the servants of the masses, rather than their masters.

      The first question that arises, is whether the notion of majority
      rule is inherently correct? Did not Adolf Hitler have the majority of
      the German population behind him? Secondly, how does one prevent the
      majority from becoming a dictatorship, which suppresses the `freedom'
      of the minority? What if, the majority in France decided to close
      down all the Mosques, prohibit Islamic marriages, Islamic
      slaughtering, Islamic names, and build Gas chambers for the
      disobedient Muslims, would that be in line with spirit of `freedom'?
      If legislation is passed to protect the minority, it is the same
      majority that can undo the legislation by passing newer legislation
      and amendments.

      In reality, almost all the democratically elected governments are
      voted into power by the largest minority of the total eligible voting
      population. George Bush certainly did not get the majority vote in
      Florida, as the election was rigged!

      Every society by its nature is composed of various competing groups.
      Naturally the group with the greatest power and wealth will have the
      largest voice. Taking the US as an example, is it the large
      multinationals with their huge party `donations' or the thousand of
      impoverished voters from the Afro-American or Hispanic community who
      have more influence? Hence, it is not votes but dollars that exert
      real sway upon the Congress and Senate.

      So, the `freedom' of choice exercised by the masses in elections, is
      overwhelmingly not represented by the democratic government, but it
      is the weight of money that is represented. Hence, after the
      elections, the majority of political `representatives' are only
      interested in serving their `donors'.

      Economic System

      The notion of `freedom' is manifested in the economic model of
      the "free market". As mentioned above, society is heterogeneous. That
      usually results in the domination of a few companies in the market
      (domestic and international), distorting the paradigm severely. This
      is expected, as `freedom' implies rule of the jungle, "survival of
      the fittest", hence the strongest members will naturally dominate. It
      may be efficient at first but certainly not fair to the weaker
      members of society. Given time, that efficiency will erode as the
      competition diminishes and monopolies and oligopolies emerge as a

      In the international arena free market economics is never practiced
      in the manner it is preached by the US or Europe. Just examine the
      subsidies given to their domestic industries and the import tariffs
      imposed on foreign imports. The recent summit at Cancun exposed the
      inherent greed of these Capitalist nations, as they sought to open up
      the third world markets in a manner not to generate free trade, but
      to exploitation them and their natural resources. The dictation by
      the various international institutions (IMF, WTO, WB etc) to the
      African and other third world nations reflects the same policies.

      The philosophy of the free market is profit before `freedom' (or
      blood). When the Iraqi civilians were being murdered, TV commentary
      focused upon the effectiveness of the weapons. Is it the Scud or the
      Patriot? Is it the Abraham tank or the Apache or the Black Hawk that
      has been most effective? It was no coincidence, that immediately
      after the first Gulf War, a huge arms exhibition was held in France.

      Therefore, in the name of economic freedom, it is the majority that
      is denied their share of the wealth, hence denial of their economic
      power (`freedom').

      Social System

      By applying the principal of "judging the tree by its fruits" is
      perhaps the most effective way of examining the notion of `freedom'.
      Have the men and women under the spell of `freedom' attained greater
      tranquillity and happiness? If so, why the divorce rates, single
      parent families, domestic violence, child abuse, suicide rate, drug
      addiction, crime, and the use of anti-depressant drugs constantly on
      the rise? The direct consequence of `freedom' has been the erosion of
      traditional religious family values, leading to a rise in sexual
      promiscuity. The boundaries of sexual freedom are pushed constantly
      as all sorts of sexual perversions become the norm. So, is this what
      Bush and Blair desires for our future generation?

      Then comes the flag of "women's rights", which is often measured by
      the removal of their clothes, rather than looking at health,
      education and security. Is this is why the lone Afghan woman was
      paraded almost naked as a symbol of liberation, whilst those who
      desire to wear modest clothing are being forced to remove it (Re:
      recent event in France)?

      We also see the bizarre duplicity in the Western attitude towards
      Islam and the Muslims. As an example, they taunt the Muslims about
      the vice of polygamy and the inherent goodness of monogamy, but yet,
      one would be hard pressed to find someone who is truly monogamous in
      their society, even amongst their leaders e.g. Bill Clinton,
      Mitterrand, John Major et al. Why is Polygamy marriage a vice, where
      as mass participation in the form of orgies, including homosexual
      activities are an endorsement of freedom?

      The other category of the `freedom' fanatics are ironically
      intolerant and/or intellectually inept to address any criticism(s),
      thus they often resort to racist language and personal attacks.
      Unfortunately some of the self-appointed leaders of the migrant
      communities have also adopted the same arguments, blinded by their
      material success and comforts in the West. The argument presented is
      simple, "If you don't like it here, then leave". Is this not a form
      of chastising for expressing their opinion under the principal
      of `free speech'? Why is it that, the people who wave the flag
      of `freedom' are trying to stifle the critics or dissidents by not
      addressing the issues and asking them to leave the country? This type
      of behaviour and reasoning tantamounts to an admittance of
      intellectual cowardice and ineptitude. Of course, these arguments are
      only posed to those who belong to the migrant communities, even if
      they are born in the country, especially if they have a non-European
      origin; otherwise they are simply classified as dissidents. As an
      example, no one has ever asked the eminent dissident, Noam Chomsky,
      to migrate from the US. In any case, opinions of this type have a
      number of inherent contradictions and/or flaws.

      a) The notion of a `free' society means the ability to
      tolerate diverse and opposing views. The very existence of criticism
      gives substantial credibility to the claim of having a `free'
      society. Otherwise what is the meaning of `freedom' when opposing
      opinions expressed are not tolerated and threats are issued to expel

      b) Those expressing criticism should be viewed as decent law
      abiding citizens exercising their rights. The ruling elites are the
      representatives, and hence they must find a way of representing the
      dissident views, rather then attempt to silence them.

      c) Even if the dissident views emanate from the economic
      migrants, does that automatically mean that they have no right to
      voice their opinion? Do they not have the right to participate as
      citizens and alter society in accordance to their viewpoint?
      Shouldn't `freedom' itself be the arbiter, in letting the masses
      decide on the strongest opinion? Isn't that what `free' thinking is
      all about? Let the people argue and prove their case.

      d) Finally where should many of these migrant settlers go? If
      the argument is that they
      oppose `freedom', `dictatorship', `secularism', etc then there is no
      real choice of settling in anywhere else in the world.

      Just examining the track record of the `freedom' fanatics, they have
      committed genocide and uprooted nations in the name of `freedom',
      over the last two to three hundred years. The entire notion
      of `freedom' is built upon deceit and lies. Just examine the layers
      of deception in fabricating the recent war on Iraq. Therefore it is
      not the nascent Islamic `fundamentalism', but the `freedom'
      fundamentalism that poses the greatest threat to the peace and
      security in the world.

      Yamin Zakaria

      London, UK




      To subscribe to this group, send an email to:

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.