There is some misunderstanding here, and I assume it is not deliberate. I know that what I write challenges the standard Islamist narrative, or seems to; but it is inevitable, considering that it is a narrative crafted by people with limited, if not entirely one-sided knowledge of the West, and I am myself a Westerner. The perception that I am challenging the basic narrative may tend to lead to misinterpretations of what I am saying, and I am more than happy to clarify.
I have not said that the West has no ideological objection to Islam. I have lived the experience of their objection to Islam in my own personal life at no small cost. I suggested, and I believe it is accurate, that their objection to Islam does not prevent them from tolerating it when it serves their material interests to do so. If you wish, you can add to this, “their political interests”, but it amounts to the same thing ultimately. I think this observation is self-evident.
Yes, I mentioned Saudi Arabia as an example of a country in which Shari’ah is the official law of the land (which it is). We can debate the extent to which their application of the Shari’ah is authentic, but this becomes a matter of interpretation, and it exposes more than anything the fact that we do not have a single interpretation of what the application of Shari’ah means.
As I have written elsewhere, the application of Shari’ah in Saudi Arabia is not perfect by anyone’s definition, but then, we have not had perfect application of the Shari’ah since the abdication of Hassan bin ‘Ali bin Abi Talib, so this is not a discussion worth pursuing.
I can guarantee you, however, that in the minds of every non-Muslim in the West (which is, after all, the relevant point here) Saudi Arabia is the quintessential Islamic state. Many Muslims would concur as well. I do not personally agree with that assessment, but that is not the issue.
With regards to media attacks against manifestations of the Shari’ah in Saudi Arabia, that is a superficial point, and has more to do with the nature and function of the mainstream media in the West, which is another matter for a separate discussion. What matters is the actual relations, economic and political, and these, of course, are extremely friendly; both on the governmental level and on the level of private business and investment relationships.
The brother stated, correctly, that Saudi Arabia does not defy the West, and that this non-defiance is the basis for the friendship; this is precisely the point I was making. Your society can be as Islamic as you like, as long as you are subordinate; which is just another way of saying, “as long as the relationship is profitable for the West…as long as their material interests are preserved”.
Regarding Indonesia, it has been a US client since at least the 1960s. The CIA organized brutal suppression of what was the main populist movement at the time, the Communist party, massacring thousands. The main populist movements today are Islamist, al-Hamdulillah, and yes, they face widespread repression—because they are populist, and challenge US domination. But Indonesia is an interesting case for this discussion because of the Free Aceh Movement in Aceh in the 1990s and early 2000s. They sought, and won autonomy and official implementation of Shari’ah, and they achieved this through targeting Western business interests, specifically Exxon-Mobile.
As for Malaysia, I did not say that they have Shari’ah, I said, accurately, that 80% of the population wants Shari’ah. Again, the brother points out how the US has engineered mechanisms for maintaining its dominance, and that is the point; as long as dominance is secured and the material interests of US power are preserved, there is no impediment to maintaining friendly relations. Throughout these arguments, he is essentially proving my point. If the interests of the West were ideological and not material, securing a safe atmosphere for doing business would not take priority over eradicating the religious sentiment of 80% of the population. Domination would not mean controlling the resources of the country; it would mean either forcing them to convert to Christianity or exterminating them. We do not see that this is the case. They can remain Muslim, wear hijab, pray, and so on, as long as they do not challenge Western authority. That is the common thread in all Western policy, and whether my dear Brother recognizes it or not, he is affirming this.
With regards to the rise in ultra-Right Wing politicians in the West, well, frankly, there is no Right or Left in mainstream politics in the West; there are only politicians who serve different coalitions of business interests. Their rhetoric is designed for public consumption to win votes, it is demagoguery and emotive, and has very little to do with the real motives behind policy. This, again, is its own discussion.
Russian intervention and the reasons behind it, in any area, is always going to be a unique case because Russia is a unique entity. It is true that their motives will not be transparently connected to business interests; they are concerned with rebuilding their crumbling regional and global influence.
The role of China and the supposed shift away from the Middle East and North Africa is, as the Brother said, not as it is advertised. The more China becomes an economic power, the more important the Middle East and Africa will be to the West, again, for the preservation of material interests; and this was explicitly stated by Nato some years ago when they suggested the legal argument of using military intervention to combat China’s use of what they called “weapons of finance” and “rogue aid” to gain influence in the Middle East and Africa.
Finally, my Brother mentions factors such as demographic changes in the West (I assume he is referring to immigration versus low birth rate), and how this has an impact on policymaking. Of course it does, particularly in terms of manufacturing support for various policies using cultural rationales to justify actions that are economically motivated. Anger about Austerity can be redirected towards immigrants, for instance. The Brexit, as I have written, was essentially a vote against Austerity, but since there was no referendum on Austerity, Britons voted to leave the EU; thinking that this would free up public money for essential social services. At the end of the day, all elements that factor into policymaking are analyzed and understood in terms of their economic impact.
The conclusion of my Brother’s post, it seems to me, is in complete agreement with what I have written. The main source of fear in the West regarding Islam arises from their perception, and it is correct, that Islam poses a challenge to their domination, which means a threat to their material interests.
I would only add that one of the most destructive things about Islam for the West stems from the fact that their economic power depends largely on moral corruption, vice, self-indulgence, and irrationality on the part of consumers; and a truly Islamic lifestyle profoundly undermines this. For this reason, they are working very hard to spread indecency and a culture of rabid consumerism, materialism, and greed in our societies. They do not have to work as hard on this issue in other societies for reasons that should be obvious.
Jazak Allah khayr to my dear brother Anas Hassan for his respectful and sincere critique. I will include a link to his post in the first comment of the comments section.