MARYAM NAMAZIE AND COMRADES ON FITNA: A FISKING ANALYSIS

MARYAM NAMAZIE AND COMRADES ON FITNA: A FISKING ANALYSIS

This interview is a transcript from Secular TV featuring Maryam Namazie of the Workers Communist Party of Iran, Bahram Soroush, and Fariborz Pooya doing the interviewing. Pooya introduces the audience to both of the others and then proceeds to give a rundown on the mass media and mainstream politician reactions to FITNA the movie. His first question is to ask Maryam Namazie this question:

Maryam Namazie, what is your initial reaction to Fitna?

She responds quickly but not eloquently:

Maryam Namazie: Well, there is a lot that can be said about it but my initial reaction when I first watched is was that I found it really annoying! I thought how dare he. The political Islamic movement has wreaked havoc for decades, long before September 11, long before the Madrid or London bombings. In Iran, we have lost an entire generation to this movement and we have struggled and fought against this movement. How dare he equate all of us as one and the same with the political Islamic movement? It made me quite angry actually.

The interviewer (Pooya) pretty much responds with a request for clarification and I don’t blame him since she played the emotional card instead of first making use of logic and reason. That would entail explanations based on sound evidence and contrary to even “Marxist logic” she does not make use of this from the outset. Instead she resorted to projection of the crudest variety and made that clear with the silly accusation that Wilders equated “all of us as one and the same with the political Islamic movement”. Nothing could be further from the truth. If anyone has really watched the movie it is made clear from the outset that the movie was not about ordinary Muslims. In fact, the film makers took great pains to make that clear. As usual this part is either outright ignored (as in this instance) or trivialized. Anyways on to Pooya’s attempt at the Socratic method.

Fariborz Pooya: What do you mean, when you say equating us with the political Islamic movement? Wilders shows images of terrorist atrocities such as 9/11 and the Madrid bombings as well as the execution of youth in Iran and he refers to the rising number of immigrants to Holland. Which part of this are you referring and objecting to?

This is a good question and said without any criticism whatsoever. Her response is thus:

Maryam Namazie: Firstly, the attacks on the west pale in comparison to the attacks on the people of the Middle East and North Africa yet he only cares to focus on these. He also blames the rising political Islamic movement in Europe to so-called Muslim immigration and shows a rise in numbers coming to the Netherlands. What he fails to see is that a lot of these people who are fleeing to Europe are actually fleeing from political Islam and want nothing to do with this movement. Yet he like many on the Right view masses of people as one and the same with their oppressors. To say that this ‘teeming hordes’ of so-called Muslim immigrants - many of them atheists, socialists, freedom fighters, secularists, and of course also those who consider themselves Muslims - are one and the same with the very movement that has been slaughtering them and that they have been at the forefront of opposing is nothing short of outrageous.

This woman is definitely at cross purposes with the ideology she believes in and how social reality is playing itself out in western Europe. This is so evident with her claim that: “What he fails to see is that a lot of these people who are fleeing to Europe are actually fleeing from political Islam and want nothing to do with this movement. Yet he like many on the Right view masses of people as one and the same with their oppressors.”

In fact, Geert Wilders and many others like him (he’s not a rightist by any standard definition unless being a liberal who somehow supports free markets is that unusual nowadays) do indeed understand that many immigrants and refugees from the Muslim societies are opposed to the jihadi current. It’s a deliberate attempt at character assassination and indicative of a simplistic worldview despite all pretenses to the contrary. She even went on to use the phrase “teeming hordes” and does not caution the interviewer (or any of us for that matter) that Wilders has never used that term and that he in fact, has not “equated” Muslim immigrants with jihadis. But then again it is convenient if you are a self-proclaimed Marxist who aspires to dominate the so-called “anti-Islamic movement”. Which really doesn’t exist as a monolithic entity and probably never will. If anything is “outrageous” about all of this it is that silly accusation she makes. It’s also a slander but leave that for the lawyers to sort out.

Everybody needs a sidekick so the next guy plays that role quite well this :

Bahram Soroush: I would agree. I wish it was an anti-Islamic film; a criticism of Islam and of the political Islamic movement. It is not. It is an anti-immigrant film. Obviously, Geert Wilders as a right-wing politician has got his own agenda, which is to blame most of the problems in Dutch society on immigrants and to label them with the mark of Islam. Whereas in fact most of those people are themselves victims who have escaped from the hell that Islamists have created in countries like Iran and Afghanistan and sought refuge in Holland and other European countries. He presents them as accomplices of this political Islamic movement which is a fascistic movement.

First of all Soroush is either lying, self-deluded, or both. I’m opting for the third possibility. The film is definitely anti-Islamic and there is simply no way that it is anti-immigrant. If it had been “anti-immigrant” as Soroush claims it to be then why is there no outcry from the non-Muslim immigrant community in Holland and elsewheres in Europe? Is it perhaps due to the fact many non-Muslim immigrants in Europe are actively targeted for intimidation by many Muslims already? His accusations of “labeling” is an outright lie and so is his claim that Wilders “presents them as accomplices of this political Islamic movement which is a fascistic movement”

Fariborz Pooya: So what you are saying is that he is not criticizing Islam and the political Islamic movement but is using images of atrocities committed by the political Islamic movement, which are factual.

This second attempt at Socratic teaching is noble but does he get an honest response? Not hardly. Here it is:

Maryam Namazie: Of course there is some truth in his movie in the same way that there is some truth in Bush’s assertions about Saddam Hussein’s violations of rights, though the US government fully supported Saddam prior to that for many years. It’s not enough to tell some parts of the truth about certain things. Also, why you tell the truth, what’s behind that truth and that you tell all of it to begin with is what matters. There is quite a lot of deception in his film.

Namazie shows how far she is willing to go in order to castigate Wilders and this time it is by using a false analogy. This is designed to appeal to the hysterical emotional level of much of the pseudo-Left as well as many in the Muslim community. One thing for sure. She sure knows her target audience. Just mention the Bush administration in the same context as FITNA and the applause will be automatic.

Her statement that “why you tell the truth, what’s behind that truth and that you tell all of it to begin with is what matters” is incredible given the way she started out with this very same interview.

This interview is more of a cameo appearance than anything else and it becomes evident with this line of questioning:

Fariborz Pooya: He doesn’t criticise any Islamic states; he might show Ahmadinejad, but he doesn’t attack Islamic states. Instead he is looking at so called Muslims in the Netherlands. Is that what you are saying?

Maryam Namazie: Yes, he does come from a perspective that has no problem with religion and even religion in power. He just doesn’t want - from his perspective - Islam to take over a ‘Christian Europe’ and he is equating that with so-called Muslim immigration.

Let me be clear that I do think that we need to focus on Islam and the political Islamic movement because it is a religion in power today. It does have state power, is vying for power, and is massacring people left, right and centre. So we do need to focus on Islam and criticise it but from a perspective that addresses the real issues at hand as that’s when you can get to some sort of solution to addressing and challenging the political Islamic movement and Islam in power. This is not Wilder’s intention or concern.

Hold on a second here. Claiming that Wilders “has no problem with religion or religion in power” sounds like great political fodder and it is. If there are plenty of people willing to simply accept that accusation instead of doing some research themselves. Which there is so I’ll give her credit where credit is due: She sure knows her target audience. Tha fact is that Wilders is a secularist but is Secular TV willing to even highlight that fact? Of course not and damn the glaring contradictions. She is most likely basing this due to the fact that Wilders mentioned “Christian Europe” and ran with that ball.

Her second accusation that Wilders has “no intention or concern” to “focus on Islam and criticise it but from a perspective that addresses the real issues at hand as that’s when you can get to some sort of solution to addressing and challenging the political Islamic movement and Islam in power.” Is an outright distortion at this point. She may very well have been so indoctrinated with this notion that it came out of her mouth automatically. Now that’s what I call well-versed.

At this point Pooya interjects with a topical run-down of reactions from politicians :

Fariborz Pooya: Islamic states, European governments, and the UN Secretary General, have condemned this movie as anti-Islamic. The Dutch government has been apologetic. There seems to be a move to prevent criticism of Islam.

Read this carefully:

Bahram Soroush: There are a few points here. First of all, the film is not anti-Islamic in that sense. It is anti-Muslim, against ordinary people. It is an attempt to label and put everyone together with the oppressive governments that they have escaped from.

Soroush is lying and obviously for political gain rather then arriving at any hard truths. It is stated from the very beginning of this movie that it was not directed at ordinary Muslims but he and Namazie don’t mention this very fact and instead are counting on members of their target audience to accept this uncritically.

Secondly, what if it was anti-Islamic? Since when is it wrong to be anti-Islamic and anti-religious? People have been criticising and opposing religious oppression and ignorance for years. They have been fighting the Established Church and religious forces, whether in power or as movements. Especially in our day and age, as Maryam pointed out, the political Islamic movement is a menace which is wreaking havoc throughout the world, and is specifically targeting people in countries under Islamic rule. So it is obvious that there should be a reaction against that. That’s why a lot of people are taking a stance against religion and Islam. That should not be forbidden; that should not be banned; that’s the right of everyone. What is the point of freedom of expression if you can’t exercise it exactly when it is needed? And it is needed more than ever now that obscurantism and ignorance are on the rise. Then you have to have a relentless, a sharp criticism of a religion which is spearheading this attack on the rights of people.

How they ever came to this conclusion is anyone’s guess. If one notices that an attack on Wilders is necessary for a Communist who ostensibly is against Islam then what is so necessary about it? The rhetorical attacks are most likely a smokescreen for a larger effort. My theory is that they know their target audience and pandering to them is a way to get their attention and if you want their attention then you want to be able to pander to their tendency to resent criticism of Islam by claiming that it is an attack on Muslims, their societies and their cultures. It’s an old formula revamped and even if she and others have left Islam they haven’t left behind the tendency to play the victim card. That and the huge amount of hatred towards non-Muslims is still something that even many ex-Muslims are susceptible to.

And if one looks at the first FFI site when it was Rational Thinking this quote from a sidebar is pertinent: [/color]

http://web.archive.org/web/20011130090034/http://faithfreedom.org

I hope for peace. But I question how peace is possible with this much hate? Let us not hide our heads under the sand. We Muslims have a lot of soul searching to do. For how long shall we live in denial? Something is terribly wrong with us. We are filled with hate. The hatred of the Jews in ingrained in our subconscious and we carry it with ourselves even after we leave Islam. How can we make peace with those whom we hate so intensely?

Bahram Soroush: And about the European governments that you mentioned, they have their own agenda as well. Their defence of freedom of expression is in inverse proportion to the volume of business and trade that they have with those governments. So we have to forget about these pretensions about human rights and freedom of expression. If they were at all concerned, they would be objecting to what is going on in Iran, in Saudi Arabia, in Afghanistan. People knew what the Taliban was doing for years but it wasn’t shown on TV at all.

This factoid is very good educational material for those who are not aware or only dimly aware of the paradoxical nature of how the push for open markets in this day and age has similar precedence in European colonial policies. It is true that freedom of expression is only given lip service by Western governments when potentially lucrative contracts are on the line when negotiating with atrocious regimes. There is a problem with all of this though. Western governments have indeed been objecting to what extremists in Iran, Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan and for quite some time. There have been diplomatic rows and given the fact that information does travel faster than it used to previously there is a tendency for much of this to be forgotten. Media saturation does lead to information overload for much of the general public as well as members of the Workers Communist Party of Iran. He missed the fact that there was footage of Taliban atrocities on television before 9-11. Somehow or another this man either missed it or hasn’t taken the time to do some fact-checking. Soroush could have capped this off by claiming that Western governments are allowing for anti-Muslim and NOT anti-Islamic propaganda to make it’s way into the public eye but of course that accusation is being reserved for Geert Wilders.

Bahram Soroush: For example, the scene in Wilders’ film of the execution of a woman in the stadium in Afghanistan is an old tape, but that was only shown in preparation for the attack on Afghanistan after September 11. For many years people had been fighting against these religious reactionaries, these executioners, but none of that was talked about because it was not politically expedient. You know that in Saudi Arabia every Friday they behead people. Is it shown? No. The Saudi government is invited to Britain and given the red carpet treatment. But tomorrow, if they have a political difference with them, they will talk about some of those atrocities. So their politics are reactionary and inhuman anyway; it has to do with business and profits.

This is a fine example that the Workers Communist Party of Iran could have raised years ago but decided not to. If anyone is even remotely acquainted with their online archives one just might find articles and interviews that talked about that but was this widely distributed by the WCP-I? Not hardly and this just shows how hypocritical it is for them to criticize Western governments when they themselves have wither withheld information or made it difficult to access for decades.

Fariborz Pooya: What are the aims of the political Islamic movement and Islamic states in their attack on this film and are they using this film to advance their policies?

Maryam Namazie: They have become quite savvy compared to two three decades ago and have learnt to advance in ways that are more palatable to a western audience. For example, use of the term Islamophobia and deeming any criticism of Islam as racism and by using victim status. And we’ve seen how well that has been working for them in the sense that you even have the UN Human Rights Council agreeing that freedom of expression needs to be limited if someone ‘abuses’ religion. I mean the whole point of human rights is rights for people not for beliefs or religions. But they have managed to change definitions and values, which fits in quite well with the US’ New World Order. This strives to make it more difficult for people to be able to speak out against Islam and the political Islamic movement because it is deemed racist or an attack on the rights of ‘minorities’, whereas in fact there is no connection between the two. As Bahram said it is crucial that we criticise Islam; they take advantage of films like this and the Danish caricatures to exert pressure for limits on free expression and speech.

Interesting points made here and nothing I really object to. Except that the likes of Maryam Namazie and Soroush have done exactly the same thing. Think about it when they attack Geert Wilders, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Wafa Sultan and others.

I have heard that there are Dutch people who have gone on the internet to apologise for Wilder’s film. Why should they? I won’t apologise for the Islamic Republic of Iran; I don’t feel any affinity with it; why would anyone feel an affinity for fascistic anti-immigrant policies? Firstly, why apologise?

Those people apologizing for Geert Wilder’s movie are generally from the Left and making a statement like this just shows that Namazie and the party she belongs to have not truly developed much insight into how the western Left operates. Or even understand the dynamics underlying the West. In other words, their own confusion prevents them from understanding the confusion of their fellow travelers. It’s a case of double impairment and it shows.

But secondly, wake up and see the bigger picture. The fact is that freedom of expression is under attack. As Bahram said, freedom of expression only matters when you say things that are not permissible, that go against the grain; that’s how things have changed throughout history - by criticism and particularly criticism of religion. Religion has always been a bulwark and barrier against progress and advancement and if we are not allowed to criticise it, where does that leave us? Being the banner of the political Islamic movement, being at the forefront of the attack against all that civilised humanity and the working class has fought for over centuries - from secularism to universal rights to freedom of expression - makes it important to criticise - irrespective of whether we dislike Wilder’s film or not. We have to say that people have a right to criticise religion and Islam and more importantly a duty to do so.

Maryam Namazie shows her grand and eloquent style at it’s best. To read the words of avowed Communists as they utter the phrase “freedom of expression” is to understand the depth of hypocrisy residing in their minds. Whether they like it or not it really is difficult for so many to take this seriously and not laugh. Even within the WCP-I which Namazie belongs to freedom of expression is severely curtailed in their meetings and congresses. The factional splits within that party are a direct result of freedom of expression being curtailed and muzzled and they are now protesting the fact that freedom of expression is under attack? This also reveals how often in their own organization’s history has avoided taking on issues due to the fact that they were not “politically expedient”. All the while lambasting Western governments for not criticizing what happens in such places as Iran, Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan. I do believe that this is commonly known as hypocrisy.

So don’t apologise, but instead organise and stand up to anti-immigrant legislation and parties, defend universal and citizenship rights for everybody but also stand up and challenge political Islam. Don’t let the Islamists walk over universal values and rights in Europe or the Middle East and elsewhere. And stand in solidarity with the people of the Middle East and North Africa who have been doing so for a long time vis-à-vis this movement. That’s what we need to do rather than apologising for Wilder’s film.

Somehow or another this is what Wilders’s film is all about but don’t expect her to acknowledge this.

Fariborz Pooya: Can you not see that the Islamic movement is using this film as an excuse to advance its policies.

Maryam Namazie: They are using it and we will use it. Civilised humanity will use it to advance its progressive stance, its defence of universal rights, its defence of secularism, its defence of asylum seekers and immigrants and its uncompromising opposition to political Islam and US militarism - both of which are part and parcel of the same new world order - feeding off of each other. Okay this film is out there. Let’s use it as one more excuse to stand up to those who are trying to take advantage of the situation. We can also take advantage of the situation and bring a human stance to it - one that the world desperately needs.

How would the “Islamic movement” use this film? I gather that they would make use of it by following very carefully what Namazie and others like Tarek Fatah have to say as they attack Wilders and other like him. The style of commentary and rhetoric is then usually copied (oftentimes verbatim) and then echoed on Islamic websites and such places as campuses in the West. Both the “Islamic movement” and the likes of Namazie do indeed feed off of each other. Let’s not fool ourselves about this. For decades they have NOT been vocal nor public in their condemnations of Islam. While they have objected to the horrors of Shariah they had achieved a clever balance until the likes of ibn Warraq, Ali Sina, Nonie Darwish and other former Muslims first emerged in the Late Nineties.

The emergence of websites informing the general public in the West about the dangers of Islam knocked them off balance and for some years they were irrelevant. As a longtime observer of this I always felt that leftist organizations such as the WCP-I , Antifa, the Socialist Workers Party in the UK, and even some self-proclaimed “anarchists” who allied themselves with such causes as the pro-Palestinian movement were going to make a move.

My prediction was that it would not be any sort of co-ordinated backlash but that the attacks on former Muslims would start slowly and gradually. First of all the fact that some former Muslims had aligned themselves with neo-conservatives in the West was a primary soft spot. It really isn’t that difficult at all to analyze and critique them but what cannot be tackled is that the “neo-con” element as well as many Christian fundamentalists did indeed help many former Muslims while much of the self-proclaimed “secular Muslims” such as Maryam Namazie, Tariq Ali and others were either silent or openly slandered former Muslims who were not leftist.

In much the same way that many Muslims truly wish that horrific allowances for child rape and physical brutalization of women and non-Muslims were never written down so do leftists fervently wish that their incompetence and lack of critical thinking not be revealed nowadays. The problem for them is not only what they have said and written been recorded but also their ‘roaring silences’ in the face of Islamic atrocities are evidence of their collaboration with jihadis. They have been and will continue to be enablers of the worst kind of people. They also do not want you to know that.

For example, the recent emergence of the Council of Ex-Muslims was a very clever ploy in which many of the best people from Faith Freedom International were duped into joining their online forum. While the vast majority of FFI members initially involved in the early days of that forum have since left for moral and ethical reasons the descent into depravity at the CEMB forums have left many on-line observers horrified and looking for explanations. Where was Maryam Namazie and the WCP-I in all this? There’s no excuse for them to claim that they didn’t know or that they were “unaware” of this. After all, they are only a literal click away from viewing all those obscenities and lies. The WCP-I is directly linked up with the CEMB forum and had a huge role in bringing it into existence.

I say that, in the end, none of us should have been shocked. After all, the WCP-I has never objected to the use of slander and libel when it is directed towards critics of Islam. Nor do they shy away from remaining silent in the face of abuses. They exhibited this tendency recently when a fifteen year old girl was vilified continuously and sexually propositioned by CEMB members online. This was when the owner of the forum (Hassan Radwan, himself a former schoolteacher) was present at that!

Fariborz Pooya: The UN Human Council led by the government of Pakistan has adopted a non binding resolution against the defamation of religion and in particular Islam. How do you link this with things happening around this issue? There is a concerted effort to undermine secularism and universal rights. How do you see this resolution?

Bahram Soroush: First of all, it’s interesting that they call it ‘defamation of religion’. It is unheard of. Usually you hear of defamation of people, of character assassination, etc. But defamation of religion? What does that mean? Does it mean criticising religion, saying that it is superstition, ignorance? What’s wrong with that? People have been doing that for years. This resolution was pushed by a number of Islamic states as an attempt, once again, to limit freedom of expression, which would have been unthinkable to someone even from the 19th century; unthinkable that in the 21st century you would be reading such nonsense as ‘we want to limit freedom of expression because you are insulting our religion; you are hurting our religious feelings’! Religion is like any other belief system; you either believe in it or you don’t. And those who believe in it have the right to defend it, and those who don’t, have the right to criticise it. This resolution is in fact a case in point how incompatible religion is with human rights, civil liberties and human progress.

Well said. The real problem with this is that Soroush is not saying anything that hasn’t said before. Can we blame him for not making mention of the fact that many neo-cons (and even fundamentalist Christian groups) came to the same conclusion years before we started to read this from hardly any leftists?

Fariborz Pooya: What does this signify in terms of protecting state’s power vis-à-vis citizens?

Maryam Namazie: It strengthens the political Islamic movement but also states in Europe and west that are

attempting to limit free expression, such as the UK government’s attempts to bring the incitement to religious hatred laws. All of this feeds into it. Any restriction on freedom of expression is the beginning of a lot more restrictions in society. We need to defend it dearly. In this day and age I think criticising Islam, criticising political Islam is one of the most important things you can do to uphold freedom of expression and universal values.

And a paradoxical issue is left unaddressed. Namely that much of the policy making behind the “incitement to religious hatred laws” has been actually encouraged by the current defamation campaign waged against many outspoken former Muslims and critics of Islam by the likes of the WCP-I as well as their fellow travelers as the SWP, the Respect Party and others. But then again not making mention of this is in Namazie’s and Poroush’s best interests and most interestingly enough due to the fact that it is not “politically expedient”.

Fariborz Pooya: Fitna, as mentioned here, doesn’t fundamentally criticise Islam; it doesn’t criticise the political Islamic movement and Islamic states that is destroying the lives of millions every day. And effectively its anti-immigrant tone distorts the whole picture. The reality is that millions of people are fighting against the political Islamic movement and that’s the movement that needs to be supported. Freedom of expression and the right to criticise Islam and religion and is a fundamental right that needs to be upheld.

Fitna could have gone much further and made mention of the atrocities committed by the so-called “Prophet” going by the name of Muhammad fourteen centuries and how his example is held up by Muslims as an example for all humanity to follow. Would Namazie, Soroush and Pooya have preferred that? Pooya fails to mention that the movie FITNA is only fifteen minutes long and is not designed to please the Left. Aren’t journalists conducting interviews supposed to withhold biased comments? At least I think so but somehow journalistic ethics seems to have become as oxymoronic as “business ethics”.

To see the April 4, 2008 interview as well as commentaries by ex-Muslims and others on Iranian Secular Society TV, click here.

This interview was first published in WPI Briefing 204, May 8, 2008.