Part II

War is about male genitals. That is what a British comedian said—in a less formal way of course—describing the current situation in Iraq. And to an extent I do agree with him. War is indeed about proving to others—and to your ego (the “I Myself”), or super-ego, whatever Freud called it—that you are better and more powerful; that your genitals are bigger than theirs.

The inside/outside state of affairs (see previous article) creates a class-like social segregation—the “developed” insiders and the “less developed” outsiders—this is further exacerbated as a result of the supremacist mentality that exists amongst active actors within each camp.

The “democrats”—on the Western front—believe that they have reached the ultimate pinnacle of human civilisation, and rightly so. The tolerance, freedom of thought and respect for the other have flourished at a level unprecedented before in the history of mankind. Western liberal democracy is a unique and un-human like experience, in the “inside” at least.

“Democrats”—the elitist amongst them at least—feel it is their duty to spread their message to the entire globe, I recall once reading on the website of a Washington-based neo-conservative think-tank: “American leadership is good for America and for the world.” This feeling of “superiority” over others leads to a “supremacist mentality”; ‘freedom and security’ can only be achieved through liberal democracy. The famous “democratic peace theory” comes into mind: liberal democracies (read: the only civilised nations of the world) do not fight each other, ergo, the only way global peace can be achieved is by turning the whole world into a liberal democracy.

Others, disagreeing with this supremacist mentality have propagated their own alternative approach. Fascism and Communism were the polar opposites of liberal democracy throughout the 20th century. Any approach—regardless of content—that opposes liberal democracy is immediately vilified and disregarded as oppressive, tyrannical and un-democratic.

Armed political Islam is the new enemy of liberal democracy, “Islamo-Fascism”, as Bush Jr. preferred to label it, is the modern-day equivalent of the “un-democratic, tyrannical and oppressive” ideology which must be combated and defeated. However, armed political Islam does not operate through traditional means; there is no state that harbours and holds armed political Islam as its official ideology. Partly due to the failure of the Middle Eastern nation-state to provide a platform for civil political Islam to be expressed, the entire movement has embraced a clandestine methodology in its operation. Bin Laden’s cave messages relayed on the internet, using Western tools to combat Westernism, is the zenith of post-modernism.

Armed political Islam is just as supremacist as elitist democrats, ‘justice and moral righteousness’ can only be achieved if Islamism prevails. Very similar rhetoric indeed, only difference is that “democratic supremacists” measure success through humanist terminology, i.e. liberty and freedom, whilst political Islamists do so through religiously-inspired virtuousness, i.e. morality and justice.

In conclusion, the inside/outside theory, twinned with the supremacist mentality that exists amongst certain actors are two of the many factors that have lead to the continuous circle of murder and violence. Islam is a religion of revolution, Muslims cannot sit and watch oppression and havoc being spread through the earth without acting. The weak states of the Muslim world have lead to an un-traditional method of resistance; sadly, political Islamists have embraced the supremacist mentality also. When the umma’s/nation’s/ideology’s effectiveness is measured through worldly success, “supremacism” will inevitably dominate our thinking.