By Nadrat Siddique
Special to the New Trend
I noticed large numbers of repostings of a Huffington Post piece on
the putative kidnapping of schoolgirls by Boko Haram. Muslims and non-Muslims
alike seem to view the Huffington Post as an authority on Africa, Islam, and on
Boko Haram, a Muslim organization with deep-seated roots in Nigeria. Here is
the link, along with some initial musings on it:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/imam-khalid-latif/muslim-outrage-boko-haram_b_5279101.html?utm_hp_ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false#sb=4291220b=facebook
Being the daughter of a journalism professor, the first question I ask upon
reading a piece on a controversial topic is: Who is the author, what are his political
affiliations, and to whom is he financially ingratiated? Imam Khalid Latif, the
writer of the Huffington Post piece has quite a resume. New York Mayor
Bloomberg selected him—of all New York City residents—to fill the position of
NYPD Muslim chaplain. Previously he was Muslim chaplain at one of the most
racist and war-policy formulating institutions in the country—Princeton
University. And—according to his self-description—he offers his services to the
State Department. The State Department is the entity bombing Muslims all over
Africa. So, from the gecko, I'd take anything he said about Africa with a grain
of salt.
The piece begins with a misplaced parallel. Latif, in his infinite empathy
for Muslim women, lists the various tragic situations of Muslimahs he’s
encountered in the course of his work as a chaplain: Rape and molestation
victims, abused wife, resistor of an arranged marriage who was beaten, and so
on. These likely occur in the U.S., where his work as chaplain is centered. The
pertinence of such experiences, however heartrending (and I say that as a
Muslim woman who has personally endured several of the situations listed), is
irrelevant to a very specific and complicated situation in Nigeria, and seems
at best a mudslinging campaign (sling enough mud, and some of it, however
irrelevant, will stick).
A few paragraphs into the piece, he engages in an outright (but cleverly
worded) fabrication on the philosophy of Boko Haram:
“Education is a basic right in Islam, regardless of what the Boko Haram
believe. The Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, has said that
‘Seeking knowledge is compulsory on every Muslim’.. Boko Haram's ideology is
attacking this God-given right.”
But Boko Haram’s statements make it very clear they are not against all
education, only Western-style education, which they view as indoctrination in jahiliyyah. In other words, their
efforts are geared at preventing the mental colonization of their people. This
is not unusual, and most movements against imperialism and colonialism/
neo-colonialism—from the Algerian anti-colonial movements, to the Lakota Sioux
to the Taliban—have historically resisted the educational institutions of the
invading/ colonizing power. The attribution of blanket anti-education sentiment
to the group is dishonest and furtherance of propaganda against a group
targeted for genocide by the puppet government and its masters (the military
powers seeking to recolonize Nigeria).
Saying “no” to Western-style education is a bulwark against cultural
imperialism and the amplification of Western corporate presence in Nigeria—and by
extension all of West Africa, since many of the largest and most influential
African universities are located in Nigeria. From the imperialist standpoint,
this threatens Western corporate interests. From the Muslim standpoint, this
provides a measure of protection for Nigeria from junk goods typically dumped
into Third World nations, whose valuable resources--oil, diamonds, petroleum,
and the like—are then extricated. Islamically-educated girls and women are not
ideal customers for useless garbage such as hose, high heels, and mini-skirts.
Saying “no” to Western style education also creates a mind-set which
challenges Western nihilism. Gay marriage, pornography, pedophilia, premarital sex,
and identification with the oppressor become a hard sell, as desensitization is
avoided.
Another question no one, including Latif, has bothered to ask is: Why, in a
region which is the wellspring of the most renowned, powerful, and influential
centers of learning—those established by the Muslim Kingdoms of Timbuktu, Mali,
Ghana, and others--an alien education with no relevance to African or Muslim
peoples is needed. The spectacle of Michelle Obama and the #Saveourgirls
campaign endeavoring to reinstate the “right” to a superior education—in their
view one that is not Afrocentric nor Islamic—to poor, ignorant Africans is
classic cultural imperialism.
What are the characteristics of a Muslim group opposing Western style
education? Are they are fundamentalists? If they are, would they permit the kidnapping
or rape of young girls? Fundamentalists are known for their exceedingly strict
moral codes; eschewing of pre-marital sex; “shotgun weddings” in cases where a
man has associated closely with a woman, let alone had sexual relations with
her; and for embrace of children born out of any union. They do not stand for
the abandoning of raped mothers with children in the countryside, as the
Western media bizarrely claims. So, either the group is fundamentalist—or it
isn’t. The practiced and professional liars of corporate media seem to be
having a problem deciding on one fabrication and sticking with it. The
continual vacillation in the story is exposing their lack of basic journalistic
integrity. And the story they tell is beginning to resound of the incubator
babies story—preposterous and far-fetched, yet swallowed by the American masses—concocted
by the U.S. to justify the first invasion of Iraq. At some point, the American
public must wake up and realize that Western militaries and AFRICOM will lie
through their teeth to eliminate or discredit any group which gets in the way
of their military designs.
On a journalistic level, Latif, like most Western journalists covering the
Boko Haram story, does not ask the key question which bears asking: When has
Whitey ever cared about Africans? Why is a White Supremacist government
suddenly concerned about Nigerian girls to the extent of investing U.S. military
assets there? How is it that all the nations standing with the U.S. in that
effort are members of AFRICOM? Is it possible that this is an imperialist
pretext to cement U.S. military bases in and around Nigeria (and West Africa in
general)?
Finally, are the kidnappings fact or fiction? If they are fact and not
fabrication, why have the numbers of girls ostensibly kidnapped, released, and remaining
in custody in the storyline put out by the puppet government, its masters, and their
propaganda arms—fluxuating like a pendulum daily? How is it that a tiny group
of at most 40 Boko Haram members could walk into a town like Chibok, seize the
girls who were on their home turf (surrounded by their families, teachers,
village elders, etc), and depart with the girls in tow, without any resistance
from the families, teachers, etc.? If the stage on which this story is being
told, was instead a court of law, the storytellers would be thrown out of court
for lack of credibility.
© 2014 Nadrat Siddique
No comments:
Post a Comment