From June 8 2015
There is no doubt, and there must be no doubt, that the nature of the conflict currently playing out in many parts of the Muslim world today is fundamentally ideological. This reality is a Qur’anic fact, and is not subject to debate.
Allah, Subhanahu wa Ta’ala, said:
“…And they will never cease fighting you until they turn you back from your religion (Islamic Monotheism) if they can…” (al-Baqarah 2:217)
“…They wish that you reject Faith, as they have rejected (Faith), and thus that you all become equal (like one another)…” (al-Nisaa’ 4:89 )
“…Neither those who disbelieve among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) nor Al-Mushrikoon (the idolaters, polytheists, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allaah, pagans) like that there should be sent down unto you any good from your Lord…” (al-Baqarah 2:105 )
The rancor of the enemies of Islam, and their ongoing desire to corrupt our belief and practice, cannot be denied by any Muslim. However, this being the permanent paradigm that governs the reality of our relationship with those who oppose our religion, it is not a particularly useful or insightful topic upon which to focus. It is as it is.
Hatred and animosity do not really matter. What matters are hateful and aggressive actions. When deep seated but latent hostility comes to the surface and is allowed to manifest itself in violence and oppression; this matters.
Whenever that happens, there are reasons and circumstances which have emboldened our enemies and which enable them to unleash their viciousness openly. It is crucial for us to understand these reasons; to understand why our enemies attack us when, where, and how they do. Animosity can be kept in check, or it can be stoked and given free rein to run amok
We cannot cure them of their hatred, but we can try to prevent situations which allow them to act out their hatred against us.
For example, the current horrific violence in Myanmar against the Rohingya Muslims must be understood within the political and economic context of that country. The hatred of the Burmese Buddhists against the Rohingyas is not new, so why is it erupting only now in barbaric massacres and atrocities?
Myanmar ‘s military rulers have been imposing a form of neoliberalism for the past several years for the benefit of both domestic and international companies. Remember, it was in Burma that the American oil and gas corporation Unocal was accused of profiting from slave labor in the 1990s. Workers were beaten, tortured and forced to work on a Unocal pipeline without wages, a charge that led to a court case against Unocal and eventually an undisclosed compensation settlement. So, the state authorities in Myanmar have proved to be ruthless against the domestic population if it serves the needs of big business.
It is standard under neoliberal imperialism that the majority of the population suffers deprivation and exploitation while an elite segment of society reaps the benefit for collaborating with international business; and this is the case in Myanmar.
The so-called economic and political reforms of the military rulers, opening up Myanmar more and more to foreign investment, while distributing contracts to cronies of the previous regime, have left the country with the widest gap in the world between rich and poor, and it is expected to only get worse. The per capita income is only about $2-3 per day, and roughly 75% of the population doesn’t have electricity.
Extreme disparity, massive inequality between the rich and poor, deteriorating social conditions, competition between a desperate and impoverished population for access to the means of financial survival, diminishing hope for the future, insecurity and anger, are all byproducts of neoliberalism, and are all, of course, ingredients in the recipe for potentially explosive social unrest.
There are only two directions in which the people’s frustration and misery can be channeled in the form of unrest; either against the authorities, or against each other. It is obviously in the interest of those in power that they not be the targets of public rage, and it is considerably safer for the people themselves to not rise against the power structure; therefore, we see that popular resentment and desperation caused by the unjust socioeconomic policies of the state are most often channeled into internecine strife between different communities within the population.
The most eligible community for victimization, of course, is whichever group is the minority, the weakest, the most hated (and the most socially acceptable to hate), and those who enjoy the least rights and protection. The Rohingyas are easy prey.
Yes, as I said, there is no doubt about the fundamentally ideological nature of the conflict, nevertheless, we must pay close attention to the conditions and circumstances which factor into whether or not ideological animosity will or can be acceptably manifested in open aggression and violence.
The latent anti-Muslim hatred in Myanmar has risen to the surface amidst the crisis conditions of drastic disparity and hopelessness, and the government knows that as long as public rage is being vented against the Rohingyas, it is not going to be vented against the authorities. This makes the atrocities of Buddhist terrorists quite a useful mechanism for managing unrest caused by socioeconomic conditions.