The English transcript of an analysis on ISIS with English subtitle: Why ISIS, today? With Hamid Taqvaee, 7 October 2014 https://youtube/watch?v=ujdVaW0bJrk#t=1359 Bread and Roses TV, 07 October 2014 With Maryam Namazie and Fariborz Pooya Maryam Namazi: I wanted to talk about ISIS and its rise. Some will argue that the rise of ISIS is linked to a “religious revival” in the world. What is your view on this? Hamid Taqvaee: I think this is not an accurate point of view at all. Religion has always been around and people in the region, the Middle East, or anywhere, have their own religion. But never has such a savage force come to the fore and raised its head and gained influence. Clearly this cannot be explained with religion. This was also said about Islamic regime in Iran, that “Iran is an Islamic society” and “people are Muslims”, therefore Khomeini’s government was one that people “chose” or women apparently chose stoning or veiling themselves because their religion required it. This is pure nonsense. Islam has existed in Iran and Middle East for many centuries but an organization like ISIS has only come to the fore for a few months. It is very clear that they are not related to each other. Maryam Namazi: You have previously talked about the factors that contributed to the rise of ISIS, such as political factors including US militarism, and neo-Conservatism. Can you explain how they are related? Hamid Taqvaee: Yes. US policies and neo-conservatism act as the background to this situation. It has created a political space, a paradigm, in which ISIS can advance. However from a political point of view and specifically with regards to ISIS’ activities or I should say crimes, these have meanings within the context of political Islam. It could be said that the barbarity which is at the core of political Islam has found its usefulness within the framework of US militarism and neo-Conservatism. Perhaps this definition clearly shows the role of these two. Islam has a capacity, as I think any religion has (and today Islam is playing this role) which has its use in US strategy for hegemony and neo-conservatism. From a socio-philosophical point of view, views like cultural relativism have created the ground for this situation. For example in Europe the so called moderate Islamists are free to do anything they want, and as yourself know better, they want to implement Sharia law in European countries. From a philosophical, political and social point of view this has created the ground work for the rise of not only ISIS but all of the political Islam such as Hamas, Hezbollah, the Islamic regime of Iran – all of which represent the deep backwardness of today’s capitalism. And ideas like cultural relativism, neo-Conservatism and neo-liberalism clearly represent this. Maryam Namazi: Can you explain this more? What are the direct roles of neo-Conservatism, neo-liberalism or post-modernism to this situation? Hamid Taqvaee: You see, these views as doctrine have completely retreated from modern or civil society. In the post-modernist viewpoint society is no longer a collection of citizens with equal rights and democracy is no longer one person one vote. Society is now made up of a mix of sects, and various religious, ethnic and cultural groups which is the theory of multiculturalism. The state, too, has become a collection of these sects. They have implemented this directly where they could like imposing this as democracy via a shower of bullets and rockets in Iraq. This is now formalized. The arrangement in Iraq is that the President is a Kurd, the Prime Minister is a Shia Muslim, and the Speaker of Parliament is a Sunni Muslim. Now that ISIS has spoiled this situation, the US now says that the Sunni Muslim dosage of the government must be increased to improve the situation. These theories and these views are 180 degrees opposed to the classic views of the ruling class themselves. It is a retreat from the ideas of French Revolution and the enlightenment and the renaissance. Democracy is no longer one person one vote. Democracy is now one tribe, one religion one vote. And the vote belongs to the head of the group. The state is no longer the result of direct election. The Iraqi President is not elected via the direct election of citizens. It is already agreed that the president of Iraq must be a Kurd. Interestingly, the other Kurdish branch has been given responsibility for the regional government. The seats of the two Kurdish sects have already been decided. We do not know how it is possible for an Iraqi citizen to choose someone other than a Kurd if they want to. One has to vote as a Sunni Muslim or Shia Muslim. Some apparently say this is not so bad for Iraq after Saddam! And it is good for people “over there”. But we also have these ideas in Europe too. The role that Catholicism or the Pope or other religions play in Europe or North America is very clear. They are showing remorse for the Enlightenment, atheism and secularism of the previous period. They have pushed it back. It is within this context that you have ISIS. ISIS has not fallen from the sky. Nor is it because of religious views of people of the region. ISIS has emerged because these are the dominant theories and views in the world. Maryam Namazi: But many people will say that these theories of multiculturalism and cultural relativism respect the views of people and more conductive to a better society. Hamid Taqvaee: Firstly, I do not understand the concept of respecting people’s ideas. I understand respecting people. But respecting ideas is meaningless. Someone who believes women are worth half of men or women have no right to divorce – only men do – or someone who believes everyone other than Salafists should be beheaded in front of the TV cameras, what does respecting their views mean? Why do we need to respect someone’s beliefs that earth is flat? One must argue with this individual and try to change their mind, but if that idea is turned into a movement, a political movement and gets into the state, then one needs to challenge and undermine that state and that movement. Then the issue is not about ideas and belief anymore but about politics. Today ISIS has raised the banner of killing kafirs – anyone who is not a Salafi – and with this they have created a movement and have taken over the state and are killing people. Respect which beliefs? At its core, multiculturalism denies the truth because the truth is universal, not local. It denies the truth because it denies human values and ideals. This is why you have a group like ISIS which takes power when neo-Conservatism says that states are a mixture of religions, and ISIS claims that they are the Islamic Caliphate. It is within this framework that ISIS has meaning. You could not imagine this 10 or 20 years ago. It is in this framework that it has meaning. So the response to the question of respecting ideas, is that no, beliefs are not for respecting. Wrong or inhumane ideas should not only not be respected, but they must be fought head on, criticized and discarded. But of course human beings are to be respected and considered equal. Maryam Namazi: What do you say to people who say ISIS, the Islamic regime of Iran and the political Islamic movement are the result of people’s own protests and grievances and the Islamists enjoy a widespread support? Hamid Taqvaee: Firstly, they do not have people’s widespread support. In Iran, the Islamic regime is widely despised. In Iraq, ISIS too is hated by the vast majority of people there. Therefore this is essentially based on a wrong assumption. As I mentioned earlier, since the people are apparently “Muslims”, or as you said, since people are poor, or since people have suffered an injustice, they will go and support some populist group that makes promises. This may be a factor but there are various parties, forces, thoughts and movements which could respond to these issues. Why the Islamist? They are not the only populists in history. One thing is correct: we have said before that one of the pillars of the political Islamic movement is constructed on the historical injustice suffered by the people of Palestine and they take advantage of this issue. But the people of Palestine in one period supported people like Nayef Hawatmeh, George Habash, PLFP and Al Fatah which saw themselves as left or nationalist. The question is why has the Islamic movement come forward at this juncture for example for supposed justice for Palestinians? ISIS is not even this; it has nothing to do with the people of Palestine. In the period that ISIS’ fortunes turned in Iraq, the war in Gaza was taking place. ISIS did not condemn Israel and said that its mission was to fight the kafirs. It quoted Koran that said it needs to fight apostates and Israel was not its business now. But even the faction that does involve itself with Palestine, the question is why not instead the liberals, the nationalists, the communists or the left? The discussion goes back to the climate that I referred to earlier; it is here that religion comes forward and makes such claims. Maryam Namazi: As you said, the Middle East and Iran have been full of protests. We saw the recent revolutions in the region. Were they not partly negative in the end? Hamid Taqvaee: The results were negative, yes, but many things were made clear. These revolutions “ploughed the land”. It provided a social – and not just theoretical – critique of many of the ideas I mentioned. For example, the People of Egypt, the movement against Muslim Brotherhood was unparalleled. In their millions, through Tamarrod movement, people in their millions got rid of the Muslim Brotherhood. That the Army took over is a different issue. The Egyptian society showed that it is deeply against the Islamic forces. It is the same in Tunisia; the war continues there, with the secular movement and the secularists have the upper hand and the Islamists assassinate them there. Therefore it is true that the revolution did not reach its ultimate aim, but it proved a number of truths which no one can deny, including the fact that these societies are not Islamic. Not only are they not Islamic but got rid of a force like Muslim Brotherhood, which had the West’s and others’ backing, with the same force that managed to get rid of Mubarak. I think that these revolutions actually showed the alternative, method and way out of the situation clearly and that it is the people, revolutionary people, who must organize. A weakness of this movement was that they did not have leadership and a party that could stand up to the situation. This mix of neo-Conservatism, cultural relativism, the Islamic regime of Iran and ISIS is not an answer or solution to anything. If the Middle East is left in this situation, its crisis will deepen further and further. The revolution in the region actually showed the solution; the people and their coming to the fore can bring an end to this situation. Maryam Namazi: Two more questions. Firstly those who want to support this progressive movement of people in opposition to both US militarism and political Islam, what exactly they need to do? What is the alternative that they can choose? Hamid Taqvaee: I think they need to gather around the banner that the revolutions in the region have raised, that is against any religious and ethnic group that is in the state or a political force. People should oppose any political factor in which religion is involved; this is what we call secularism. But I also must say that today’s secularism must be more radical and profound than the classical secularism. Classical secularism wanted the separation of Church and state when Feudalism had had its days and was falling apart. Today, religion is not just the state, it is a movement, a social movement and doctrine, not just for the religious but a doctrine for the nonreligious bourgeoisie as well – a doctrine that says “ideas must be respected”, “religion has rights”, “What about the rights of the religious?”, “if and when they form a state, it is their state and nothing to do with us”, “there is Islamic democracy”, “the Islamic justice is different from western justice” and many other such nonsense. What I want to say is that today’s secularism is facing this front. Classical secularism fought Feudalism and a world that had passed its sell by date. Today’s secularism has to fight post-modernism, which is return of capitalism to medieval times. Therefore you have to fight against its philosophy, which is not only the philosophy of the church, or Koran, or religion, but against the apparent non-religious philosophy that has created a vast space for religion. You must fight a doctrine that has not come from Mohammad, Jesus or Moses, but from Fokuyama, Friedman and others but open a large space for religion. You have to fight with relativism; not with antiquity and the Torah but with cultural relativism. This is the solution. The solution is a left and radical secularism. I have always said that the solution is a socialist renaissance, not a classical renaissance against feudalism and religion whose time has passed. That movement carried out its task and went but today they are denying it, crossing it out of history and in the name of post-modernism, they are going back to pre-medievalism. For this reason, I think that the solution is an enormous attack on all fronts – theoretical, intellectual, political, practical, in the street, via lobbyist work, in social media... from a militant, radical secularist point of view against all of this situation and not just against the Islamists. Against the Islamists and their seemingly post-modernist supporters. I think this is the key. Maryam Namazi: As a final question, there are many on the left that support the Islamists as anti-imperialists and support cultural relativism as tolerance in defence of minorities in Western countries. What do you say to these groups? Hamid Taqvaee: This is the left wing of postmodernism, which stands on the right of liberalism. What I am saying is that postmodernism is in such a bad situation that its left wing stands on the right of classical liberalism. In this way, they cannot be defined as left and will be outside the left even in the broadest possible sense. They are anti-American and therefore unite with reactionary anti-Americans. There are not only progressives who oppose America; there are many reactionary anti-Americans such as feudal forces, the Islamic Republic, Hamas, Hezbollah and ISIS. The post-modernist left are allies with these reactionaries – they say so themselves. They belong to a reactionary anti-Americanism. The US must be opposed the way that we oppose it – that is opposition to neo-Conservatism, its cultural relativism, its policy of creating space for religion in western societies, allowing Sharia Courts, building of mosques, etc. This group is actually in favour of and allies with imperialism here. They have no quarrel here and only oppose the US when America for its own interests fights ISIS; these groups then go and support ISIS and the Islamists. This is why I say they are the left of postmodernism that falls on the right of liberalism. Maryam Namazi: I know I said it was my final question but just one more. Those who say we should not intervene and wait to see what ISIS will do... Hamid Taqvaee: ISIS has done its deeds. ISIS is not in the Academia or in theory; it is beheading people, displacing millions, selling women in markets ... What does it mean we must wait and see what it does? It is a state even and has declared its Caliphate and Islamic rule. These are laughable and revolting excuses; there is no response to these people. You must only control yourself from puking! There is not answer to those who say wait and see what will come of ISIS. Well go and have a look on social media and see what they are doing. Is it OK for you? Is it good? Is it OK to buy and sell women like slaves? Is it OK to gun down people in the pavement and behead people on camera? Maryam Namazi: Thank you for your interview. Hamid Taqvaee: I thank you too.
Posted on: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 04:38:54 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015