Religion and Colonialism in MENA

In a previous post, I mentioned that there are two general responses to colonialism - nationalism and socialism - and one particular to the MENA reigion - Islamism (a political movement based on religious fundamentalism). I also suggested that Islamism may be viewed as a type of nationalism.

Of these three responses to colonialism, socialism poses the most radical challenge to the global power structure. Although socialism is a form of capitalism, the practice of nationalizing industries serves as a means of blocking the control of resources, enterprises, and markets from the most powerful competitors - the ones who maintain neocolonial control over the entire globe.

In contrast to socialism, nationalism and Islamism can be (and have been) coopted by the industrial powers to suit their own purposes. This fact is most fundamentally demonstrated by the way in which countries like the United States promote Islamophobia and denounce "Islamic extremism" on the one hand, while using their other hand to covertly aid and support Islamist groups. While the support for nationalist groups has been used primarily to destabilize other colonial powers, the capitalist powers are most likely to court Islamist groups when they can be pitted against socialist forces (in this sense, then, Islamism becomes "the lesser of two evils").

Islamist groups are remarkably varied in terms of the scope of their goals and the methods that they employ. It is by no means a single movement. Rather "Islamism" describes a heterogenous group of movements. (This is one reason it is misguided to speak generically of "Islamic fundamentalism," "terrorism," or "religious extremism" as a unified force, when these groups and movements are so often working at cross purposes.) Some Islamist groups are so narrowly concerned with consolidating political power within a single nation that they do not hesitate to coorporate with the industrial powers to promote a neoliberal agenda (e.g. "open markets") or whatever else these powers want in return for covert funding and support.

It is fairly well known that the United States armed the Mujahideen in Agfhanistan in order to thwart the socialist forces that had taken root there (including Soviet involvement). People seem less aware that both the British and the United States have supported the Islamic Brotherhood in Egypt. For this reason the Brotherhood is currently lauded for being "moderate" and friendly to Israel, despite the fact that they constituted an important part of the power structure of the previous despotic regimes. The aims of the world powers are, in fact, served by keeping in place as much of the governing apparatus from Mubarak's regime as possible, as it had been carefully constructed to protect foreign capitalist interests via covert interventions (including raising the Islamic Brotherhood into a significant political force).

Under what circumstances, then, do Islamists become "the enemy"?  Some Islamists do not have such narrow political pursuits.  Some are more broadly anti-colonial and seek to undermine foreign influence in the region.   This may include opposition to the perceived proxy of European and U.S. interests in the Middle East: Israel.

This, like socialism, is too much of a challenge.

But why would the U.S. promote a generalized Islamophobia within its borders, when this does not represent the actual geopolitical relationship with Muslim or even Islamist forces?  I will try to tackle this question perhaps in the next post.