theguardian: by Deeyah Khan —
Extremists love to have a demonised enemy, says film maker Deeyah Khan, but it doesn’t have to be inevitable that we give them one
From Khan’s new documentary “Jihad: A British Story” former extremist Abu Muntasir in Afghanistan Deeyah Khan FuuseFilms
Each of us handles dozens of interactions every day: buying a bus ticket, acknowledging an acquaintance in the street, drinking coffee with friends, a quick hello to a neighbour – and these have emotional and psychological effects. A well-meant compliment from a stranger can put a spring in your step; but an unwelcome or aggressive sexual approach can leave you grinding your teeth for hours. In many ways, these small interactions represent our experiences of the society that exists beyond the sanctuaries of our homes and families.
One of the former extremists I interviewed for my latest documentaryJihad writes out three words on a sheet of paper: “PAKI GO HOME”. These three words were a phrase that formed the backdrop of his childhood. I, too, recognise the unnerving power of these three words, which I heard myself growing up as a young woman of South Asian ancestry in the streets of Oslo. All of my interviewees in this documentary seemed to have grown up in this hostile ambience, from regularly facing racist violence in their communities to the chilly rejection of the middle-class parents who warned their daughter off a relationship that they feared would result in ‘mongrel children
There is an African saying: If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth.
Where young men and women are constantly made to feel they are not part of society, when they see themselves as pushed out, and harassed in various ways, it creates a societal wound in which the infection of Islamic extremism can fester
This is, in fact, how extremisms of all kinds propagate themselves. Muslim extremists and right-wing racists share more than the fantasy of their own cultural supremacy: they are, in a sense, interdependent – predicated upon the existence of a demonised enemy. Both seek to recruit people to their own side through creating narratives of fear, hate, and resentment, of ‘us and them’. By tearing the wound ever wider, they seek to grind the infection of their world view even deeper into the flesh. It’s a vicious circle of mutually reinforcing hatreds.
I also learned that this is not inevitable. The extremist worldview is irrational, fragile and inconsistent, and thus can be vulnerable. Just as the sense of otherness builds from interactions which are felt as exclusionary, unjust and humiliating, interactions which are inclusive, fair and respectful can introduce a contradiction in their stark worldview and provide a reminder of our shared humanity. For instance, Ken Ballen tells the story of Ahmad, a naive young Saudi radicalised by the grotesque tortures uncovered in Abu Ghraib, and manipulated into an attempted suicide bombing in Iraq. With an odd symmetry, the badly burned Ahmad was slowly nursed back to health by American nurses and doctors who treated him with greater respect and kindness than he had received in Al Qaeda, creating a profound change in his worldview.
Images of prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad in late 2003, obtained by the Special Broadcasting System in Australia
De-radicalisation needs more than programmes and projects it will require changes in the everyday interactions between people – in smiles, favours, and acts of kindness; in actions which are rooted in a refusal to accept the ‘us and them’ narrative peddled by extremists on all sides. We need to make greater efforts to combat injustice and exclusion through all means, from the highest level of government to our own everyday behaviour, to make sure we all share in a sense of belonging, justice and feelings of respect within our society. This will reduce the appeal of the extremist narrative. Wounds this deep need stitches: but we can all be a part of the healing process.
Origional Post here: http://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/she-said/2015/jun/13/what-muslim-extremists-and-right-wing-racists-have-in-common
Without citing one single example, this writer seeks to garnish her flawed perception by calling right-wingers ‘racists’ and goes on to compare them to muhammadan extremists. She carefully avoids using the appropriate word ‘terrorists’ to dampen the seriousness of the crimes committed by those demented beings on humanity.
Her simple reason for such comparison is that both the right-wingers and the terrorists try to recruit people to the sides. If that is the charge, then the muhammadans and the leftists, who use arm-twisting tactics to gain membership are as guilty as the muhammadan extremists. Right-wingers rarely use force, either coercive or subtle, to make their points unlike leftists and muhammadans who apply this on campuses, websites, newspaper articles, books and the airwaves. Try having a different opinion from members of these groups and the ‘difference will be clear’.
When right-wingers complain, it is because they see the murdering of their culture by political correctness and multiculturalism. Does anybody wonder what would happen if there is an influx of Hindus, for instance, into Turkey with the intent to stay permanently?
The writer cites an African proverb but fails to recall that Idi Amin, who expelled thousand of Asians of Indian and Pakistani descent, was not a Western right-winger but an African and a muslim. Time and again there have been attacks in South Africa on non-nationals. Are those spurred by Western right-wingers? Are the South Africans racists? The reason the attackers give is the protection of their natural inheritance. There has been no incident on such a scale anywhere in the West. It would have been branded racism had it occurred. Yet, there have been no condemnation and demonstrations against such violence.
There would be no ‘racists attacks’ if people learn to improve the conditions in their countries instead of migrating to lands ‘flowing with milk and honey’.