Supremacist Ideologies

By M H Ahssan

Two countries — Britain and Canada — have banned Zakir Naik, boss of the Islamic Research Foundation and Peace TV, from entering their countries. Reason: his entry is “not conducive for public good.”

There are several ironies to this ban. First, it seems that these two democracies are afraid of the impact Naik’s speeches will have on their own Muslim populations. This implies that they are not confident of countering his views through direct engagement and rational argumentation. They have shot themselves in the foot and admitted defeat against radical Islamist rhetoric. If Britain and Canada believe in democracy, they should have allowed Naik to make his speeches, and challenged him on facts and/or sued him for preaching hate or making false statements. But they chickened out.

Second, democracies are tying themselves in knots when it comes to imposing bans. They won’t ban Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses or the Danish cartoons or Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s Infidel, which have upset many Muslims. But they are ready to ban Naik’s right to talk to Muslims in Britain and Canada. Even when banning things, one must be consistent.

On the other hand, it is difficult to hold any brief for Naik and his convoluted logic. Among other things, he has justified polygamy on the ground that men are by nature polygamous. But polyandry? No sir. He has ambiguous views on terrorism, to say the least, and he has gone on record to claim that 9/11 was George Bush’s conspiracy.

On Tuesday, Naik clarified his remarks on terrorism and confused us more. He said every Muslim should be a terrorist with “anti-social elements”. This is no way to clarify his views on terror.

When anti-social elements are not defined, it could mean anything. Some so-called secular faces, most notably film-maker Mahesh Bhatt, have not covered themselves with glory in standing by Naik. Without explaining, Bhatt said: “I salute his (Naik’s) audacity in challenging their (the British government’s) ignorance.”

Bhatt should know that Naik’s audacity is actually limited. He is philosophically on the same page as Britain when it comes to bans. Naik would be happy banning anti-Islam books. By the same logic, he shouldn’t object to the British government’s efforts to gag him by denying him an entry. He is opposing the ban because it restricts his freedom to preach dubious views, but he has no qualms about muffling the voices of those who disagree with him.

Naik has outrageous views on freedom. He is all for equal rights for Muslims in non-Islamic countries, but not the reverse. Reason: Because Islam is the right religion. Others are wrong, so how can they claim parity with Islam?

Naik’s Peace TV is also a misnomer. It has little to do with peace, except as defined by the man himself. The channel is an Islamic supremacist forum whose central objective is to put the religion on a pedestal. Nothing wrong in that, for all religions innately believe they are better than the rest. But supremacist ideas sit poorly with democracy, harmony and inclusiveness. If Hitler sought racial supremacy for Aryans, and upper class Hindus sought supremacy based on caste, Naik’s supremacist ideas are based on religious beliefs. By questioning the legitimacy of other religions he is not doing Islam any favour.

As an Indian he has not learnt the most important lesson his civilisation has to offer: that there can be different paths to the same objective, whether that objective is about finding god, or truth or peace or whatever. This is not the same as moral relativism, but the idea of different paths allows people from diverse cultures, races and belief systems to coexist peacefully.

Naik cannot be considered a votary of peace as long as his
polemics focus on proving the superiority of his religion.
In a violent world that’s armed to the teeth, where countries, communities and groups have written their own stories of victimhood and grievance, real or imagined, supremacist ideas are sure to lead us to Armageddon. We only have to look at such ideologies of the 20th century to realise why this is so.

Hitler’s racist and anti-Semitic orientation brought us the Second World War. The Soviet Union and Communist China believed in the supremacy of the proletariat. These regimes ended up terrorising and killing millions of their own people in the process. In this century, unprincipled belief in capitalism’s superiority has led to the collapse of the world economy in 2008.

The moral: when we start believing that only one book, or one
ideology or one approach has all the answers, we are doomed. This is not to question the good in every holy book or ideological treatise, but human beings must have the humility to admit that no one can really have all the answers, and that too all the time. We can only get better and better approximations of the truth, but may never quite get there.